Perimetry techniques in neuro-ophthalmology

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 420-428

  Donahue, Sean P ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PERIMETER; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

HUMANS; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PATHWAYS;

EID: 0032698596     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00055735-199912000-00009     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. 1 Automated perimetry. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1996, 103:1144-1152.
2. 2 Katz J, Tielsch JM, Quigley HA, Sommer A: Automated porimetry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry. Ophthalmology 1995, 102:21-26.
3. 3 Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Trope GE: Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey Field Analyzer, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology 1993, 100:949-954
4. 4 O'Brien C, Poinoosawmy D, Wu J, Hitchings R: Evaluation of the Humphrey FASTPAC threshold program in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1994, 78:516-519.
5. 5 Schaumberger M, Schafer B, Lachenmayr BJ: Glaucomatous visual fields. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995, 36:1390-1397.
6. 6 Glass E, Schaumberger M, Lachenmayr BJ: Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995, 36:1847-1854.
7. 7 Wall M, Kutzko KE, Balwantray CC: Variability in patients with glaucomatous visual field damage is reduced using size V stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997, 38:426-435.
8. 8 Khoury JM, Donahue SP, Lavin PJM, Tsai JC: Comparison of 24-2 and 30-2 perimetry in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies. J Neuroophthalmol 1999, 19:100-108 These authors reviewed automated 30-2 full-threshold fields from patients with glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies. They found that no significant clinical information would have been lost by testing only the 54 points tested in the 24-2 strategy.
9. 9 Wall M, Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, Nguyen R, Brito C, Keltner JL: Long-and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 1998, 116:53-61. Patients with visual-field defects from optic neuritis have high levels of variability even when tests are done at separate times on the same day. This hinders determination of progression of a defect.
10. 10 Van Coevorden RE, Mills RP, Chen YY, Barnebey HS: Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary. Ophthalmology 1999, 106: 178-181.
11. 11 Johnson CA, Brandt JD, Khong AM, Adams AJ: Short-wavelength automated perimetry in low-, medium-, and high-risk ocular hypertensive eyes. Initial baseline results. Arch Ophthalmol 1995, 113:70-76.
12. 12 Keltner JL, Johnson CA: Short-wavelength automated perimetry in neuroophthalmologic disorders. Arch Ophthalmol 1995, 113:475-481.
13. 13 Maeda H, Tanaka Y, Nakamura M, Yamamoto M: Blue-on-yellow perimetry using an armaly glaucoma screening program, Ophthalmologica 1999, 213: 71-75.
14. 14 Polo V, Abecia E, Pablo LE, Pinilla I, Larrosa JM, Honrubia FM: Short-wavelength automated perimetry and retinal nerve fiber layer evaluation in suspected cases of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1998, 116:1295-1298.
15. 15 Hudson C, Flanagan JG, Turner GS, Chen HC, Young LB, McLeod D: Short-wavelength sensitive visual field loss in patients with clinically significant diabetic macular oedema. Dibetologia 1998, 41:918-928.
16. 16 Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E: Use of blue-on-yellow perimetry to demonstrate quadrantanopia in multiple sclerosis. Arch Ophthalmol 1998, 116:828.
17. 17 Wild JM, Cubbidge RP, Pacey IE, Robinson R: Statistical aspects os the normal visual field in short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998, 39:54-63.
18. 18 Kwon YH, Park HJ, Jap A, Ugurlu S, Caprioli J: Test-retest variability of blue-on-yellow perimetry is greater than white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 1998, 126:29-36. The SWAP strategy allows earlier detection of visual-field defects but does so at the cost of a large increase in variability relative to that seen with the standard white-on-white strategy.
19. 19 Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J: Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:165-169. These authors describe a new thresholding algorithm for the Humphrey perimeter that shortens testing time by over 50%.
20. 20 Bengtsson B, Heijl A: Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:268-272. The results obtained with SITA are similar to those found with the standard full-threshold strategy in patients with glaucomatous visual-field defects.
21. 21 Bengtsson B, Heijl A: Inter-subject variability and normal limits of the SITA Standard, SITA Fast, and the Humphrey Full Threshold computerized perimetry strategies, SITA STATPAC. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999, 77:125-129. This multicenter trial of 330 patients showed that the normal range for threshold is lower for SITA than for the standard full-threshold algorithm. Thus, subtle defects can be detected more easily with SITA.
22. 22 Bengtsson B, Heijl A: Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Full Threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999, 77:143-146. The depth and location of glaucomatous visual-field defects determined with SITA are similar to those obtained using the full-threshold strategy.
23. 23 Shirato S, Inoue R, Fukushima K, Suzuki Y: Clinical evaluation of SITA: a new family of perimetric testing strategies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1999, 237:29-34.
24. 24 Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock SA, Cunliffe IA: Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999, 40:1152-1161.
25. 25 Wall M, Punke S, Stickney T, Brito C, Withrow K, Kardon R: SITA (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm) in hemianopias and optic neuropathies: a comparison with full threshold testing. Presented at the 25th NANOS meeting, Snowmass, Colorado, March 1999.
26. 26 Bengtsson B, Heijl A: SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:431-437.
27. 27 Sugimoto K, Schötzau, A, Bergamin O, Zulauf M: Optimizing distribution and number of test locations in perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998, 236:103-108.
28. 28 Lachkar Y, Barrault O, Lefrancois A, Demailly P: Rapid Tendency Oriented Perimeter (TOP) with the Octopus visual field analyzer. J Fr Ophthalmol 1998, 21:180-184.
29. 29 Martinez GA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN: Comparison of high-pass resolution perimetry and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1995, 119:195-201.
30. 30 Wall M, Conway MD, House PH, Allely R: Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of spatial resolution and Humphrey automated perimetry in pseudotumor cerebri patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991, 32: 3306-3312.
31. 31 Wall M, Lefante J, Conway M: Variability of high-pass resolution perimetry in normals and patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991, 32:3091-3095.
32. 32 Wall M: High-pass resolution perimetry in optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991, 32:2525-2529.
33. 33 Birt CM, Shin DH, McCarty B, Kim C, Lee DT, Chung HS: Comparison between high-pass resolution perimetry and differential light sensitivity perimetry in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1998, 7:111-116.
34. 34 Chauhan BC, House PH, McCormick TA, LeBlanc RP: Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol 1999, 117:24-33.
35. 35 Martin L, Wanger P: Five-year follow-up of treated patients with glaucoma using resolution perimetry. J Glaucoma 1998, 7:22-26.
36. 36 Quigley HA: Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 1998, 125:819-829. Frequency-doubling perimetry has high sensitivity for the detection of visual-field damage in patients with glaucoma, and it may be an adequate screening test.
37. 37 Brusini P, Busatto P: Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 227(suppl):23-24.
38. 38 Chauhan BC, Johnson CA: Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999, 40:648-656. This study shows that 1) the normal large increase seen in variability at damaged visual-field locations with standard perimetry and 2) the increase in variability with eccentricity seen with standard perimetry are both decreased with FDP.
39. 39 Bosworth CF, Sample PA, Gupta N, Bathija R, Weinreb RN: Motion automated perimetry identifies early glaucomatous field defects. Arch Ophthalmol 1998, 116:1153-1158.
40. 40 Varano M, Scassa C: Scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry. Semin Ophthalmol 1998, 13:203-209.
41. 41 Orzalesi N, Miglior S, Lonati C, Rosetti L: Microperimetry of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects. Vision Res 1998, 38:763-771. Microperimetry done using a scanning laser ophthalmoscope can identify retinal nerve fiber bundle defects with high levels of accuracy.
42. 42 Donahue SP, Kardon RH, Moore P: Automated pupil perimetry in amblyopia: generalized depression in the involved eye. Ophthalmology 1997, 104: 2161-2167.
43. 43 Donahue SP, Wall M, Kutzko KE, Kardon RH: Automated perimetry in amblyopia: a generalized depression. Am J Ophthalmol 1999, 127:312-321.
44. 44 Assi A, Brazier DJ: Functional hemianopias on Humphrey visual field analysis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:620-622.
45. 45 Martin TJ: Threshold perimetry of each eye with both eyes open in patients with monocular functional (nonorganic) and organic vision loss. Am J Ophthalmol 1998, 125:857-864. Martin describes a novel approach to the detection of functional visual loss. A prism is placed over each eye to separate the images, and automated perimetry is done while both eyes are open.
46. 46 Edgar DF, Crabb DP, Rudnicka AR, Lawrenson JG, Guttridge NM, O'Brien CJ: Effects of dipivefrin and pilocarpine on pupil diameter, automated perimetry and LogMAR acuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1999, 237:117-124.
47. 47 Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, Bullinger A, Reicherts M, Mermoud C: Automaled visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part I: Experimental validation of a testing procedure. Vision Res 1998, 38:2203-2210.
48. 48 Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, Reicherts M, Bullinger A, Mermoud C: Automated visual field examination in children aged 5-8 years. Part II: Normative values. Vision Res 1998, 38:2211-2218.
49. 49 Dobson V, Brown AM, Harvey EM, Narter DB: Visual field extent in children 3,5-30 months of age tested with a double-arc LED perimeter. Vision Res 1998, 38:2743-2760.