Purchase this article with an account.
Luca Rossetti, Paolo Fogagnolo, Maurizio Digiuni, Antonio Modarelli, Giovanni Montesano; Comparison of two strategies to calculate perimetric sensitivity with the Compass perimeter.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):3933. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare ZEST (Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing) vs 4-2 strategies for Compass Fundus Automated Perimetry (FAP, CenterVue, Padova, Italy).
18 helthy subjects and 15 glaucoma patients were enrolled. They received 3 perimetric tests with the two strategies on one eye chosen at random using FAP. The following test order was used: 4-2, ZEST, 4- 2.
The difference in mean sensitivity (4-2 vs ZEST) was -0.9 dB. Test duration with ZEST was 353 ± 31 sec on healthy subjects (6.4 sec/location) and 343 ± 67 sec on glaucoma patients (6.2 sec/location).
Mean sensitivity with ZEST is comparable with 4-2, being about 1 dB higher. A similar finding is found in the literature between full-threshold and SITA programs with Humphrey. Mean duration with ZEST is nearly halved compared with previously published data on FAP 4-2. These preliminary data suggest that ZEST strategy can improve FAP clinical use.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only