A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 64-67

  Lima, V C ^a   Prata, T S ^a   De Moraes, C G V ^a   Kim, J ^a   Seiple, W ^a,b   Rosen, R B ^a,c   Liebmann, J M ^a,d   Ritch, R ^a,c  

^a NEW YORK EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^b Lighthouse International   (United States)

^c NEW YORK MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^d NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE; FEMALE; FUNCTION TEST; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MICROPERIMETRY; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA MACULA LUTEA; STANDARD ACHROMATIC PERIMETRY; THICKNESS; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; VISUAL THRESHOLD;

AGED; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PERIMETRY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 74549207609     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: 14682079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.159772     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Weinreb RN, Khaw PT. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Lancet 2004;363:1711-20.
2. Boden C, Blumenthal EZ, Pascual J, et al. Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;138:1029-36.
3. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:343-53.
4. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Chauhan BC, et al. A comparison of visual field progression criteria of 3 major glaucoma trials in early manifest glaucoma trial patients. Ophthalmology 2008;115:1557-65.
5. Kanadani FN, Hood DC, Grippo TM, et al. Structural and functional assessment of the macular region in patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:2-3.
6. Kono Y, Sugiyama K, Ishida K, et al. Characteristics of visual field progression in patients with normal-tension glaucoma with optic disk hemorrhages. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135:499-503.
7. Levene RZ. Central visual field, visual acuity, and sudden visual loss after glaucoma surgery. Ophthalmic Surg 1992;23:388-94.
8. Costa VP, Smith M, Spaeth GL, et al. Loss of visual acuity after trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology 1993;100:599-612.
9. Miglior S. Microperimetry and glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl 2002;236:19.
10. Midena E, Radin PP, Pilotto E, et al. Fixation pattern and macular sensitivity in eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. A microperimetry study. Semin Ophthalmol 2004;19:55-61.
11. Rohrschneider K, Bültmann S, Springer C. Use of fundus perimetry (microperimetry) to quantify macular sensitivity. Prog Retin Eye Res 2008;27:536-48.
12. Midena E. Perimetry and the fundus. In: Midena E, ed. An introduction to microperimetry. Thorofare: Slack Incorporated, 2007:1-244.
13. Orzalesi N, Miglior S, Lonati C, et al. Microperimetry of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects. Vision Res 1998;38:763-71.
14. Oztürk F, Yavas GF, Küsbeci T, et al. A comparison among Humphrey field analyzer, Microperimetry, and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph in the evaluation of macula in primary open angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2008;17:118-21.
15. Okada K, Watanabe W, Koike I, et al. Alternative method of evaluating visual field deterioration in very advanced glaucomatous eye by microperimetry. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2003;47:178-81.
16. Amde W, Lima VC, Prata TS, et al. Comparison of standard automated perimetry thresholds to thresholds obtained with two different microperimetry devices [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:4737.
17. McArdle BH. The structural relationship: regression in biology. Can J Zool 1988;66:2329-39.
18. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, et al. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2006;81:259-91.
19. Mori F, Ishiko S, Kitaya N, et al. Scotoma and fixation patterns using scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry in patients with macular dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;132:897-902.
20. Mori F, Ishiko S, Kitaya N, et al. Use of scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry in clinically significant macular edema in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2002;46:650-5.
21. Rohrschneider K, Springer C, Bültmann S, et al. Microperimetry - comparison between the micro perimeter 1 and scanning laser ophthalmoscope - fundus perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139:125- 34.
22. Caprioli J, Sears M, Spaeth GL. Comparison of visual field defects in normal-tension glaucoma and high-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;102:402-4.
23. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Douglas GR, et al. Visual field damage in normal-tension and high-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1989;108:636-42.