June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Comparison between New Perimetry Device (IMOvifa®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Medi Eslani
    Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology,, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
  • Takashi Nishida
    Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology,, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
  • Sasan Moghimi
    Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology,, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
  • Juan M. Arias
    Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology,, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
  • Cristiana Vasile
    Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology,, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
  • Vahid Mohammadzadeh
    Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology,, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
  • Robert N Weinreb
    Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology,, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Medi Eslani None; Takashi Nishida None; Sasan Moghimi None; Juan Arias None; Cristiana Vasile None; Vahid Mohammadzadeh None; Robert Weinreb Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Eyenovia, Topcon, Code C (Consultant/Contractor), Heidelberg Engineering, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Konan Medical, Optovue, Centervue, Bausch&Lomb,Topcon, Code F (Financial Support), Toromedes, Zeiss Meditec, Code P (Patent)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 1272 – A0412. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Medi Eslani, Takashi Nishida, Sasan Moghimi, Juan M. Arias, Cristiana Vasile, Vahid Mohammadzadeh, Robert N Weinreb; Comparison between New Perimetry Device (IMOvifa®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):1272 – A0412.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate the performance of IMOvifa®, a new perimeter which performs visual field (VF) testing outside an examination darkroom, and compare with Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).

Methods : In this cross-sectional study, 138 eyes (including 25 healthy, 48 glaucoma suspects, and 65 primary open angle glaucoma) of 69 patients were evaluated. Patients were required to be experienced with the visual field testing performed on the HFA. All patients first underwent HFA 24-2 SITA-Fast and then IMOvifa® 24-2 AIZE-Rapid, which is comparable with SITA-Fast, for both eyes on the same day. Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), foveal threshold (FT), and visual field index (VFI) were compared between the two perimeters using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Pearson’s and Bland-Altmann correlation. Measurement time for performing VF for both eyes was also collected for each device.

Results : Measurement time was significantly faster for IMOvifa® compared to HFA (256sec vs 419sec, P<0.001). Rim artifacts were observed in 18 eyes (13.0%) with IMOvifa® and in 5 eyes (5.1%) with HFA. No differences were seen in mean MD (95% CI) -3.1 (-3.9, -2.4) dB for HFA vs. -3.1 (-3.8, -2.4) for IMOvifa®, and VFI 93.1 (91.1, 95.1) % for HFA vs 92.6 (90.4, 94.9) % for IMOvifa® (both P>0.05). Significant differences were seen in mean PSD 3.2 (2.7, 3.6) dB for HFA vs 4.1 (3.5, 4.6) for IMOvifa® (P<0.001), and FT 33.9 (33.1, 34.6) dB for HFA vs 30.6 (29.3, 31.9) dB for IMOvifa® (P<0.001). Pearson’s r was strong for MD (r=0.90, P=<0.001), PSD (r=0.78, P<0.001) and VFI (r=0.94, P<0.001), but not for FT (r=0.21, P=0.023). Bland−Altman scatterplots showed reasonable agreement between the two perimeters (Figure 1).

Conclusions : IMOvifa® reduced measurement time by 38.9%. MD, PSD, and VFI values for IMOvifa® were highly correlated with HFA. This new perimeter appeared to reduce fatigue for both patient and examiner. Additional studies are needed to determine if it be useful for routine visual field testing of glaucoma.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

 

Bland–Altman diagram with median difference and agreement limits (including 95% of all difference values).

Bland–Altman diagram with median difference and agreement limits (including 95% of all difference values).

×
×

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.

×