A review of current technology used in evaluating visual function in glaucoma

Seminars in Ophthalmology

Volumn 25, Issue 5-6, 2010, Pages 309-316

  Turalba, Angela V ^a   Grosskreutz, Cynthia ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

functional testing; glaucoma progression; perimetry; visual field

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DISEASE COURSE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ELECTRORETINOGRAM; EVOKED VISUAL RESPONSE; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA PROGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NERVE CELL; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA GANGLION CELL; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; REVIEW; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPY MICROPERIMETRY; SELECTIVE PERIMETRY; STANDARD AUTOMATED PERIMETRY; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY;

DISEASE PROGRESSION; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 78649353072     PISSN: 08820538     EISSN: 17445205     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/08820538.2010.518898     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Traquair HM. Clinical detection of early changes in the visual feld. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, 1939; 37: 158-179.
2. Choplin NT and Edwards R P. (1999). Visual Field Testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer: A Text and Clinical Atlas, 2nd ed. Thorofare, NJ: Slack, xxii.
3. Anderson DR. Standard perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am, 2003; 16(2):205-212, vi.
4. Quigley HA, Addicks, EM and Green, WR. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. III. Quantitative correlation of nerve fber loss and visual feld defect in glaucoma, isch-emic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol, 1982; 100(1):135-146.
5. Harwerth RS, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual feld defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1999; 40(10): 2242-2250.
6. Blumenthal EZ, et al. Evaluating several sources of variability for standard and SWAP visual felds in glaucoma patients, suspects, and normals. Ophthalmology, 2003; 110(10): 1895-1902.
7. Heijl A. Computerised perimetry. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K, 1985; 104(Pt 1): 76-87.
8. Schaumberger M, Schafer B, and Lachenmayr BJ. Glaucomatous visual felds. FASTPAC versus full threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1995; 36(7): 1390-1397.
9. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, and Olsson J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual feld strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 1998; 76(2): 165-169.
10. Bengtsson B, et al. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 1997; 75(4): 368-375. (Pubitemid 27470462)
11. Budenz DL, et al. Sensitivity and specifcity of the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual feld defects. Ophthalmology, 2002; 109(6): 1052-1058.
12. Bengtsson B and Heijl A. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2003; 44(11): 5029-5034.
13. Midena 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(1-2): 55-61. (Pubitemid 39658410)
14. Orzalesi N, et al. Microperimetry of localized retinal nerve fber layer defects. Vision Res, 1998; 38(5): 763-771.
15. Okada K, et al. Alternative method of evaluating visual feld deterioration in very advanced glaucomatous eye by micro-perimetry. Jpn J Ophthalmol, 2003; 47(2): 178-181.
16. Ozturk F, et al. A comparison among Humphrey feld analyzer, Microperimetry, and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph in the evaluation of macula in primary open angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma, 2008; 17(2): 118-121.
17. Lima VC, et al. A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual feld in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual feld defects. Br J Ophthalmol, 2010; 94(1): 64-67.
18. Fogagnolo P, et al. Short-wavelength automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry in glaucoma. Prog Brain Res, 2008; 173: 101-124.
19. Sample PA, et al. Visual function-specifc perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2000; 41(7): 1783-1790.
20. Sample PA, et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specifc perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2006;47(8): 3381-3389.
21. Drance SM, et al. Acquired color vision changes in glaucoma. Use of 100-hue test and Pickford anomaloscope as predictors of glaucomatous feld change. Arch Ophthalmol, 1981; 99(5): 829-831.
22. Johnson CA, et al. Progression of early glaucomatous visual feld loss as detected by blue-on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol, 1993; 111(5): 651-656.
23. Ferreras A, et al. Can frequency-doubling technology and short-wavelength automated perimetries detect visual feld defects before standard automated perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma? J Glaucoma, 2007; 16(4): 372-383.
24. Leeprechanon N, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry to detect early glaucoma. Ophthalmology, 2007; 114(5): 931-937. (Pubitemid 46635852)
25. Delgado MF, et al. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology, 2002; 109(12): 2362-2374.
26. Sample PA, Martinez GA, and Weinreb RN. Short-wavelength automated perimetry without lens density testing. Am J Ophthalmol, 1994; 118(5): 632-641.
27. Blumenthal EZ, et al. Comparison of long-term variability for standard and short-wavelength automated perimetry in stable glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol, 2000; 129(3): 309-313.
28. Hutchings N, et al. Long-term fuctuation in short-wavelength automated perimetry in glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2001; 42(10): 2332-2337.
29. Rossetti L, et al. Learning effect of short-wavelength automated perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma, 2006; 15(5): 399-404.
30. Tafreshi A, et al. Visual function-specifc perimetry to identify glaucomatous visual loss using three different defni-tions of visual feld abnormality. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2009; 50(3): 1234-1240.
31. Ng M, et al. Comparing the full-threshold and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithms for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2009; 50(4): 1726-1733.
32. Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to fickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am, 1981; 71(9):1051-1055.
33. Johnson CA and Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual feld loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1997; 38(2): 413-425.
34. Trible JR, et al. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol, 2000; 129(6): 740-745.
35. Landers JA, Goldberg I, and Graham SL. Detection of early visual feld loss in glaucoma using frequency-doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol, 2003; 121(12): 1705-1710.
36. Artes PH, et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2005; 46(7): 2451-2457.
37. Wall M, et al. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2009; 50(2): 974-979.
38. Centofanti M, et al. Learning effect of humphrey matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension. J Glaucoma, 2008; 17(6): 436-441.
39. De Tarso Pierre-Filho P, et al. Learning effect of Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Eur J Ophthalmol, 2010; 20(3): 538-541.
40. Bayer AU and Erb C. Short wavelength automated perim-etry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucoma-tous standard visual feld defects. Ophthalmology, 2002; 109(5): 1009-1017.
41. Bowd C, et al. Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2001; 42(9): 1993-2003.
42. Soliman MA, et al. Standard achromatic perimetry, short wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology, 2002; 109(3): 444-454.
43. Bosworth CF, Sample PA, and Weinreb RN. Motion perception thresholds in areas of glaucomatous visual feld loss. Vision Res, 1997; 37(3): 355-364.
44. Bosworth CF, et al. Motion automated perimetry identifes early glaucomatous feld defects. Arch Ophthalmol, 1998; 116(9): 1153-1158.
45. Frisen L. High-pass resolution perimetry. A clinical review. Doc Ophthalmol, 1993; 83(1): 1-25. (Pubitemid 23179167)
46. Birt CM, et al. Comparison between high-pass resolution perimetry and differential light sensitivity perimetry in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma, 1998; 7(2): 111-116.
47. Chauhan BC, et al. Comparison of conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry in a prospective study of patients with glaucoma and healthy controls. Arch Ophthalmol, 1999; 117(1): 24-33.
48. Iester M, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual feld defect by nonconventional perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol, 2003; 135(1): 35-39.
49. Hood DC. Objective measurement of visual function in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2003; 14(2): 78-82.
50. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, and Robson JG. The uniform feld and pattern ERG in macaques with experimental glaucoma: removal of spiking activity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2000; 41(9): 2797-2810.
51. Colotto A, et al. Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2000; 41(8): 2205-2211.
52. Ventura LM and Porciatti V. Pattern electroretinogram in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2006; 17(2): 196-202.
53. Bach M. and Hoffmann MB. Update on the pattern elec-troretinogram in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci, 2008; 85(6): 386-395.
54. Goldberg I, Graham SL, and Klistorner AI. Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous feld loss. Am J Ophthalmol, 2002; 133(1): 29-39.
55. Fortune B, et al. Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2007; 48(3): 1173-1180.
56. Giangiacomo A, Garway-Heath D, and Caprioli J. Diagnosing glaucoma progression: current practice and promising technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2006; 17(2): 153-162.
57. Chang RT and Budenz DL. Diagnosing glaucoma progression. Int Ophthalmol Clin, 2008; 48(4): 13-28.
58. Girkin CA, et al. Short-wavelength automated perimetry and standard perimetry in the detection of progressive optic disc cupping. Arch Ophthalmol, 2000; 118(9): 1231-1236.
59. Haymes SA, et al. Glaucomatous visual feld progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2005; 46(2): 547-554.
60. Keltner JL, et al. The association between glaucomatous visual felds and optic nerve head features in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ophthalmology, 2006; 113(9): 1603-1612.
61. Kim J, et al. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14. Distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual feld fuctuations. Ophthalmology, 2004; 111(11): 2109-2116.
62. Musch DC, et al. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology, 1999; 106(4): 653-662.
63. Heijl A, et al. Measuring visual feld progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2003; 81(3): 286-293.
64. Schulzer M. Errors in the diagnosis of visual feld progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology, 1994; 101(9): 1589-1595.
65. Bengtsson B and Heijl A. A visual feld index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol, 2008; 145(2): 343-353.
66. Bengtsson B, Patella VM, and Heijl A. Prediction of glau-comatous visual feld loss by extrapolation of linear trends. Arch Ophthalmol, 2009; 127(12): 1610-1615.
67. Nouri-Mahdavi K, et al. Comparison of methods to predict visual feld progression in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol, 2007; 125(9): 1176-1181.
68. Vesti E, Johnson CA, and Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual feld progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2003; 44(9): 3873-3879.
69. Heijl A, et al. A comparison of visual feld progression criteria of 3 major glaucoma trials in early manifest glaucoma trial patients. Ophthalmology, 2008; 115(9): 1557-1565.
70. Anderson DR, Drance SM, and Schulzer M. Natural history of normal-tension glaucoma. Ophthalmology, 2001; 108(2): 247-253.
71. Medeiros FA, et al. The relationship between intraocular pressure and progressive retinal nerve fber layer loss in glaucoma. Ophthalmology, 2009; 116(6): 1125-33 e1-e3.
72. Sommer A, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous feld loss. Arch Ophthalmol, 1991; 109(1): 77-83.
73. Johnson CA, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): II. Comparison of optic disk and visual feld characteristics. Am J Ophthalmol, 2003; 135(2): 148-154.
74. Girkin CA. Relationship between structure of optic nerve/nerve fber layer and functional measurements in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2004; 15(2): 96-101.
75. Hood DC and Kardon RH. A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res, 2007; 26(6): 688-710.