Non-conventional perimetric methods in the detection of early glaucomatous functional damage

Eye

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 835-842

  Salvetat, M L ^a   Zeppieri, M ^a   Tosoni, C ^a   Parisi, L ^a   Brusini, P ^a  

^a SANTA MARIA DELLA MISERICORDIA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

Frequency doubling technology; Primary open angle glaucoma; Pulsar perimetry; Rarebit perimetry; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; PERIMETRY; PULSAR PERIMETRY; RAREBIT PERIMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD;

EID: 77952534569     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2009.216     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Maier PC, Funk J, Schwarzer G, antes G, Falck-Ytter YT. Treatment of ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br Med J 2005;331: 134-136.
2. American Academy of Ophthalmology preferred practice patterns committee glaucoma panel. Preferred practice patterns. Primary open angle glaucoma suspect. American Academy of Ophthalmology: San Francisco, 2002.
3. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 1989;107: 453-464.
4. Harwerth R, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, Smith 3rd EL, Crawford ML. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40: 2242-2250.
5. Demirel S, Johnson CA. Short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in ophthalmic practice. J Am Optom Assn 1996;67: 451-456.
6. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2003;16: 213-225.
7. Johnson CA, Samuels JS. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38: 413-425.
8. Frisén L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: rarebit probing. Vis Res 2002;42: 1931-1939.
9. Gonzales-Hernandez M, Pareja Rios A, Rodriguez M, Gonzales de la Rosa M. Combined spatial resolution and contrast perimetry in normal subjects. In: Wall M, Mills R (eds) Perimetry Update 2000/2001. Amsterdam: Kugler, 2001. pp 109-114.
10. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, Girkin C, Weinreb RN. Visual function-specific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41: 783-790.
11. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Mansberger SL, Cioffi GA. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2005;14: 11-19.
12. Monhart M. What are the options of psychophysical approaches in glaucoma? Surv Ophthalmol 2007;52: S127-S133.
13. Kelly DH. Frequency doubling in visual responses. Opt Soc Am 1996;56: 1628-1633.
14. Kim T-W, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Shah N, Weinreb RN. Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detected by frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 2007;114: 1053-1057.
15. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;137: 863-871.
16. Frisén L. Closing perimetry's gap: a rarebit approach. In Henson DB and Wall M (eds) Perimetry Update 2002/2003. Kugler Publications, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2004. pp 213-219.
17. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Parisi L, Zeppieri M. Probing glaucoma visual damage by rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89: 180-184.
18. Martin L, Wanger P. New perimetric techniques. A comparison between rarebit and frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 2004;13: 268-272.
19. Gonzales-Hernandez M, Garcia-Feijoó J, Sanchez Mendez M, Gonzales de la Rosa M. Combined spatial, contrast, and temporal functions perimetry in mild glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol 2004;14: 514-522.
20. Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical decision in glaucoma. St Louis: The CV Mosby, 1993. pp 52-61.
21. Anderson D, Patella V. Automated static perimetry. St. Louis: Mosby, 1999. p 117.
22. Turpin A, McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Vingrys AJ. Performance of efficient test procedures for frequencydoubling technology perimetry in normal and glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43: 709-715.
23. Gonzales-Hernandez M, Fernandez-Vidal A, Garcia-Feijoó J, Gonzales de la Rosa M. Perimetric measurements of contrast sensitivity functions. In: Henson DB, Wall M (eds) Perimetry Update 2002-2003. Amsterdam: Kugler, 2004. pp 345-352.
24. Gonzales de la Rosa M, Bron A, Morales J, Sponsel WE. TOP perimetry. Vision Res 1996;36 (suppl):88.
25. Hanley A, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148: 839-843.
26. Anderson RS, O'Brien C. Psychophysical evidence for a selective loss of M ganglion cells in glaucoma. Vis Res 1997;37: 1079-1083.
27. Johnson CA. Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1994;3 (Suppl 1):S32-S44.
28. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Blue-onyellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111: 651-656.
29. Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Mechanisms isolated by frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43: 398-401.
30. Zeppieri M, Demirel S, Kent K, Johnson CA. Perceived spatial frequency of sinusoidal gratings. Optom Vis Sci 2008;85: 318-329.
31. Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol 1990;300: 5-25.
32. Frisén L. High-pass resolution perimetry and age-related loss of visual pathway neurons. Acta Ophthalmol 1991;69: 511-515.
33. Brusini P, Busatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998;76 (S227):23-24.
34. Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L, Pascual JP, Boden C, Zangwill LM et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47: 3381-3389.
35. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L, Brusini P. Rarebit perimetry in normal subjects: test-retest variability, learning effect, normative range, influence of optical defocus, and cataract extraction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48: 5320-5331.
36. Burgansky-Ellish NJ, Wollstein G, Patel A, Bilonick RA, Ishikawa H, Kagemann L et al. Glaucoma detection with matrix and standard achromatic perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91: 933-938.
37. Martin L, Wanger P, Vancea L, Gothlin B. Concordance of high-pass resolution perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry results in glaucoma: no support for selective ganglion cell damage. J Glaucoma 2003;12: 40-44.
38. Hood DC, Kardon RH. A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res 2007;26: 688-710.
39. Morales J, Weitzman ML, Gonzalez de la Rosa M. Comparison between tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) and Octopus threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology 2000;107: 134-142.
40. Takada S, Matsumoto C, Okuyama S, Iwagaki A, Otori T. Comparative evaluation of four strategy (standard, dynamic, TOP, 2-level) using the automated perimeter Octopus 1-2-3. In: Wall M, Wild JM A (eds) Perimetry Update 1998/99: Proceedings of the XIIth International Perimetric Society Meeting. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kugler Publications, 1999;35-41.
41. Lachkar Y, Barrault O, Lefrancois A, Demailly P. Rapid tendency oriented perimeter (TOP) with the Octopus visual field analyzer. J Fr Ophtalmol 1998;21: 180-184.
42. Maeda H, Nakuara M, Negi A. New perimetric threshold test algorithm with dynamic strategy and tendency oriented perimetry (TOP) in glaucomatous eyes. Eye 2000;14: 747-751.