Purchase this article with an account.
Paolo Fogagnolo, Maurizio Digiuni, giovanni montesano, Luca Mario Rossetti; Preliminary results of test-retest variability of Compass vs Humphrey Perimeters. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):2844. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare the variability of visual field (VF) results obtained using Compass fundus perimeter (CMP, Centervue, Italy) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA, Zeiss, Germany).
Thanks to a retinal tracking system, CMP actively compensates for eye movements during VF testing by displacing the stimuli according to the position of fixation at any given time. 9 patients with moderate-advanced glaucoma (Mean Sensitivity of 13.57±6.95 dB) and 7 normal subjects underwent test-retest with both CMP and HFA on one eye (randomly chosen). ZEST 24° was used for CMP, and SITA Standard 24° for HFA. Tests that were not reliable were excluded. Mean Sensitivity Difference (MSD) and Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) between test and retest were compared between CMP and HFA.
In glaucoma, MSD was -0.10±1.05 dB for CMP and -0.59±1.55 dB for HFA (P=0.36); MAD was 2.37±0.74 dB for CMP and 3.34±1.10 dB for HFA (P=0.20). In normal subjects, MSD was 0.05±0.50 dB for Compass and 0.24±0.43 dB for HFA; MAD was 1.50±0.32 dB for Compass and 1.45±0.35 dB for HFA. Average test duration for the group of subjects with glaucoma was comparable for the two devices (6:47 CMP; 7:00 HFA).
Test-retest variability for glaucoma patients seems to be lower with Compass than with the HFA, with a reduction of 30% in MAD. Sample size will be expanded, and additional data will be collected to assess variability in the full range of VF sensitivities.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only