July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Clinical evaluation of a new perimetric testing algorithm, SITA Faster
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Vincent Michael Patella
    Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Boel Bengtsson
    Department of Ophthalmology, Skane University Hospital Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
  • Gary C Lee
    Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Luke Xiang-Yu Chong
    School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States
  • John G Flanagan
    School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States
  • Aiko Iwase
    Tajimi Iwase Eye Clinic, Tajimi, Japan
  • Christopher Kai-Shun Leung
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
  • Johnny Ring
    Department of Ophthalmology, Skane University Hospital Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
  • Anja Tuulonen
    Tays Eye Centre, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
  • Thomas Callan
    Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc, Dublin, California, United States
    School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States
  • Anders Heijl
    Department of Ophthalmology, Skane University Hospital Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Vincent Michael Patella, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Boel Bengtsson, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (C); Gary Lee, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (E); Luke Chong, None; John Flanagan, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (C), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (F); Aiko Iwase, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (F), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (R); Christopher Leung, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (F), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (R), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (P); Johnny Ring, None; Anja Tuulonen, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (F); Thomas Callan, Carl Zeiss Meditec, inc (E); Anders Heijl, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (C), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 6031. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Vincent Michael Patella, Boel Bengtsson, Gary C Lee, Luke Xiang-Yu Chong, John G Flanagan, Aiko Iwase, Christopher Kai-Shun Leung, Johnny Ring, Anja Tuulonen, Thomas Callan, Anders Heijl; Clinical evaluation of a new perimetric testing algorithm, SITA Faster. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):6031.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : A new test algorithm has been developed for the Humphrey perimeter called SITA Faster (SFR). SFR is a modification of SITA Fast (SF) and was designed to further reduce test time. The purpose of the present study was to compare the results of SITA Faster with those of SF and SITA Standard (SS).

Methods : 126 eyes with manifest or suspect glaucoma of 126 patients underwent 24-2 threshold perimetry with SFR, SF and SS in randomized order, with tests repeated in reversed order at a 2nd visit. Five centers, Berkeley CA USA, Hong Kong China, Malmö Sweden, Tajimi Japan, and Tampere Finland participated. Results were pooled and analyzed in terms of test time, VFI, MD, and number of significantly depressed test points in total (TD) and pattern deviation (PD) probability maps. Test-retest variability was also studied.

Results : We analyzed results from 125 eyes; one outlier was excluded. Mean test times were 2 min 59 sec, 4 min 7 sec, and 6 min 9 sec for SFR, SF & SS. SFR thus reduced average test time by 30.4% and 53.5% compared to SF & SS. Test times for all 3 algorithms were shorter in normal and minimally damaged fields than in fields having higher levels of field loss (Fig. 1). Mean MD values were not significantly different, at -8.48 dB, - 8.42 dB and -8.48 dB for SFR, SF and SS. Mean VFI values for SFR and SF were identical at 77.1%, while that of SS was slightly worse at 75.9% (p=0.003). There were no significant differences between SFR & SF in the number of significantly depressed test points in TD or PD probability maps. Intervisit R2 for the number of TD <5% or worse significant points did not differ significantly between SFR & SF (0.87 vs 0.88), and R2 between SFR & SF TD significant points was 0.86. Test–retest threshold variabilities were similar, generally with overlapping confidence limits, but with slightly higher SFR variability in severly depressed test points, and slightly lower SFR variability in points with higher sensitivity (Fig. 2).

Conclusions : SITA Faster saved considerable test time as compared to SF & SS. SITA Faster test results were similar to those of SF. SITA Faster’s rather small differences compared to SS were similar to those seen between SF and SS. SITA Faster provides a new time-saving alternative for SAP threshold testing.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

 

Fig. 1 Test durations vs stage of glaucoma

Fig. 1 Test durations vs stage of glaucoma

 

Fig. 2 Pointwise threshold variability with 95% confidence limits vs threshold

Fig. 2 Pointwise threshold variability with 95% confidence limits vs threshold

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×