Efficacy of SLO-Microperimetry and Humphrey for evaluating macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 48, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 406-412

  Kulkarni, Sadhana V ^a   Coupland, Stuart G ^a   Stitt, David M ^a   Hamilton, John ^a   Brownstein, Jonathan J ^a   Damji, Karim F ^b  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMPHREY PERIMETER; MACULAR THICKNESS; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPHTHALMIC PERIMETER; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PILOT STUDY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETINA MACULA LUTEA; RETINAL NERVE FIBER LAYER THICKNESS; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPE; SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPE MICROPERIMETER; VISUAL FIELD;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; MALE; OPHTHALMOSCOPES; PILOT PROJECTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETINA; SCOTOMA; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84888338265     PISSN: 00084182     EISSN: 17153360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Lachenmayr BJ, Drance SM. Central function and visual field damage in glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol. 1992;16: 203-9.
2. Kameda T, Tanabe T, Hangai M, et al. Fixation behavior in advanced stage glaucoma assessed by the MicroPerimeter MP-1. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53: 580-7.
3. Mikelberg FS. Do computerised visual fields and automated optic disc analysis assist in the choice of therapy in glaucoma? Eye. 1992;6: 47-9.
4. Smith SD, Katz J, Quigley HA. Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37: 1419-28.
5. Chen PP. Correlation of visual field progression between eyes in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2002;109: 2093-9.
6. Chen FK, Patel PJ, Xing W, et al. Test-retest variability of micro-perimetry using the nidek MP1 in patients with macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50: 3464-72.
7. Noe G, Ferraro J, Lamoureux E, et al. Associations between glaucomatous visual field loss and participation in activities of daily living. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2003;31: 482-6.
8. Vargas-Martin F, Peli E. Augmented-view for restricted visual field: multiple device implementations. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79: 715-23.
9. Calabrese A, Bernard JB, Hoffart L, et al. Small effect of interline spacing on maximal reading speed in low-vision patients with central field loss irrespective of scotoma size. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51: 1247-54.
10. Sunness JS. Face fields and microperimetry for estimating the location of fixation in eyes with macular disease. J Vis Impair Blind. 2008;102: 679-678.
11. Markowitz S, Reyes S. Microperimetry and clinical practice: an evidence-based review. Can J Ophthalmol.. 2013;48: 350-7.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Crossland MD, Dunbar HM, Rubin GS. Fixation stability measurement using the MP1 microperimeter. Retina. 2009;29: 651-6.
15. 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.
16. Okada K, Yamamoto S, Mizunoya S, Hoshino A, Arai M, Takatsuna Y. Correlation of retinal sensitivity measured with fundus-related microperimetry to visual acuity and retinal thickness in eyes with diabetic macular edema. Eye. 2006;20: 805-9.
17. Menke MN, Sato E, Van De Velde FJ, et al. Combined use of SLO microperimetry and OCT for retinal functional and structural testing. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244: 634-8.
18. Kallmark FP, Ygge J. Fixation pattern in healthy subjects during microperimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14:CR311-5.
19. Lima VC, Prata TS, De Moraes CG, et al. A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94: 64-7.
20. 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.
21. Ozturk F, Yavas GF, Kusbeci 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.
22. Midena E, Radin PP, Convento E, et al. Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17: 63-8.
23. Sawa M, Gomi F, Toyoda A, et al. A microperimeter that provides fixation pattern and retinal sensitivity measurement. Jpn J Ophthal-mol. 2006;50: 111-5.
24. Rohrschneider K, Springer C, Bultmann S, et al. Microperimetry - comparison between the micro perimeter 1 and scanning laser ophthalmoscope - fundus perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139: 125-34.
25. Ratra V, Ratra D, Gupta M, et al. Comparison between Humphrey field analyzer and micro perimeter 1 in normal and glaucoma subjects. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2012;5: 97-102.
26. Springer C, Bultmann S, Volcker HE, et al. Fundus perimetry with the micro perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2005;112: 848-54.
27. Guedes V, Schuman JS, Hertzmark E, et al. Optical coherence tomography measurement of macular and nerve fiber layer thickness in normal and glaucomatous human eyes. Ophthalmology. 2003;110: 177-89.
28. Landa G, Rosen RB, Garcia PM, et al. Combined three-dimensional spectral OCT/SLO topography and Microperimetry: steps toward achieving functional spectral OCT/SLO. Ophthalmic Res. 2010;43: 92-8.
29. Orzalesi N, Miglior S, Lonati C, et al. Microperimetry of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects. Vision Res. 1998;38: 763-71.
30. Rohrschneider K, Issa PC, Springer C, et al. Fundus perimetry in functional diagnostics of glaucoma. Applicable in the practice? Ophthalmologe. 2012;109: 345-50.
31. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer, optic nerve head, and macular thickness measurements for glaucoma detection using optical coherence tomography Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139: 44-55.
32. Kanadani FN, Hood DC, Grippo TM, et al. Structural and functional assessment of the macular region in patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90: 1393-7.
33. Leung CK, Chan WM, Yung WH, et al. Comparison of macular and peripapillary measurements for the detection of glaucoma: an optical coherence tomography study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112: 391-400.
34. Bagga H, Greenfield DS. Quantitative assessment of structural damage in eyes with localized visual field abnormalities. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137: 797-805.
35. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109: 77-83.
36. Kim NR, Lee ES, Seong GJ, et al. Structure-function relationship and diagnostic value of macular ganglion cell complex measurement using fourier-domain OCT in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51: 4646-51.
37. Raza AS, Cho J, de Moraes CG, et al. Retinal ganglion cell layer thickness and local visual field sensitivity in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129: 1529-36.
38. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. False-negative responses in glaucoma peri-metry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41: 2201-4.