Fundus-driven perimetry (microperimetry) compared to conventional static automated perimetry: Similarities, differences, and clinical applications

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 48, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 358-363

  Acton, Jennifer H ^a   Greenstein, Vivienne C ^b,c  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONVENTIONAL STATIC AUTOMATED PERIMETRY; FUNDUS CAMERA; GAZE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUMINANCE; MICROPERIMETRY; OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; PERIMETRY; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; REVIEW; SCOTOMA; STARGARDT DISEASE; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

FUNDUS OCULI; HUMANS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; RETINA; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84888385307     PISSN: 00084182     EISSN: 17153360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.03.021     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Johnson CA, Wall M, Thompson HS. A history of perimetry and visual field testing. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88: 8-15.
2. Inatomi A. A simple fundus perimetry with fundus camera. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1979;19: 359-62.
3. Kani K, Eno N, Abe K, Ono T. Perimetry under television ophthalmoscopy. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1977;14: 231-6.
4. Kani K, Ogita Y. Fundus controlled perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1979;19: 341-50.
5. Timberlake GT, Mainster MA, Webb RH, Hughes GW, Trempe CL. Retinal localization of scotomata by scanning laser ophthalmo-scopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1982;22: 91-7.
6. Sunness JS, Schuchard RA, Shen NM, Rubin GS, Dagnelie G, Haselwood DM. Landmark-driven fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36: 1863-74.
7. Rohrschneider K, Fendrich T, Becker M, Krastel H, Kruse FE, Volcker HE. Static fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope with an automated threshold strategy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233: 743-9.
8. Cappello E, Virgili G, Tollot L, Del Borrello M, Menchini U, Zemella M. Reading ability and retinal sensitivity after surgery for macular hole and macular pucker. Retina, 2009;29: 1111-8.
9. Finger RP, Issa PC, Fimmers R, Holz FG, Rubin GS. Scholl HPN. Reading performance is reduced by parafoveal scotomas in patients with macular telangiectasia type 2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50: 1366-70.
10. Kiss CG, Barisani-Asenbauer T, Simader C, Maca S, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Central visual field impairment during and following cystoid macular oedema. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92: 84-8.
11. Kriechbaum K, Prager F, Geitzenauer W, et al. Association of retinal sensitivity and morphology during antiangiogenic treatment of retinal vein occlusion over one year. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116: 2415-21.
12. Varano M, Tedeschi M, Oddone F, Perillo L, Coppe AM, Parravano M. Microperimetric retinal changes in myopic choroidal neovascu-larization treated with intravitreal ranibizumab. Retina. 2010; 30: 413-7.
13. Yodoi Y, Tsujikawa A, Nakanishi H, et al. Central retinal sensitivity after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab for myopic choroidal neovascularization. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147: 816-24.
14. Acton JH, Bartlett NS, Greenstein VC. Comparing the Nidek MP-1 and Humphrey Field Analyzer in normal subjects. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88: 1288-97.
15. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol. 1997;75: 368-75.
16. Acton JH, Smith RT, Greenberg JP, Greenstein VC. Comparison between MP-1 and Humphrey visual field defects in glaucoma and retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89: 1050-8.
17. Seiple W, Lima VC, Prata TS, Greenstein VC, Rosen R. The physics and psychophysics of microperimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;89: 1182-91.
18. Crossland MD, Tufail A, Rubin GS, Stockman A. Mesopic micro-perimetry measures mainly cones; Dark-adapted microperimetry measures rods and cones. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. ARVO meetings abstracts March 26 2012, 53:4822.
19. Stockman A, Sharpe LT. Into the twilight zone: the complexities of mesopic vision and luminous efficiency. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2006;26: 225-39.
20. Latch M, Lennie P. Rod-cone interaction in light adaptation. J Physiol. 1977;269: 517-34.
21. Frumkes TE, Sekuler MD, Barris MC, Reiss EH, Chalupa LM. Rod-cone interaction in human scotopic vision. 1. Temporal analysis. Vision Res. 1973;13: 1269-82.
22. Hood DC, Greenstein V. Models of the normal and abnormal rod system. Vision Res. 1990;30: 51-68.
23. Greenstein VC, Hood DC. The effects of light adaptation on L-cone sensitivity in retinal disease. Clin Vis Sci. 1992;7: 1-7.
24. Chen FK, Patel PJ, Xing W, et al. Test-retest variability of microperimetry using the Nidek MP1 in patients with macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50: 3464-72.
25. Rohrschneider K, Bultmann S, Springer C. Use of fundus perimetry (microperimetry) to quantify macular sensitivity. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2008;27: 536-48.
26. Chen FK, Patel PJ, Webster AR, Coffey PJ, Tufail A, Da Cruz L. Nidek MP1 is able to detect subtle decline in function in inherited and age-related atrophic macular disease with stable visual acuity. Retina. 2011;31: 371-9.
27. Midena E, Vujosevic S, Cavarzeran F. Normal values for fundus perimetry with the microperimeter MP1. Ophthalmology. 2010;117: 1571-6.
28. Springer C, Bultmann S, Volcker HE, Rohrschneider K. Fundus perimetry with the micro perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2005;112: 848-54.
29. Woods RL, Dagi LA, Cestari DM, Rizzo, JF. Apparent visual field defect found with Nidek MP-1 microperimeter is caused by an instrument artefact. Presented at: Vision 2008 March 2008 The 9th International Conference on Low Vision; Montreal, Que., Canada.
30. Rohrschneider K, Springer C, Bultmann S, Volcker HE. Micro-perimetry - comparison between the Micro Perimeter 1 and scanning laser ophthalmoscope - fundus perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139: 125-34.
31. Parisi V, Perillo L, Tedeschi M, et al. Macular function in eyes with early age-related macular degeneration with or without contralateral late age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2007;27: 879-90.
32. Midena E, Vujosevic S, Convento E, Manfre A, Cavarzeran F, Pilotto E. Microperimetry and fundus autofluorescence in patients with early age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91: 1499-503.
33. Sulzbacher F, Kiss C, Kaider A, et al. Correlation of SD-OCT features and retinal sensitivity in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53: 6448-55.
34. Acton JH, Smith RT, Hood DC, Greenstein VC. The relationship between retinal layer thickness and the visual field in early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53: 7618-24.
35. Johnson PT, Brown MN, Pulliam BC, Anderson DH, Johnson LV. Synaptic pathology, altered gene expression, and degeneration in photoreceptors impacted by drusen. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46: 4788-95.
36. Johnson PT, Lewis GP, Talaga KC, et al. Drusen-associated degeneration in the retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44: 4481-8.
37. Meleth AD, Mettu P, Agron E, et al. Changes in retinal sensitivity in geographic atrophy progression as measured by microperimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 1119-26.
38. Ozdemir H, Karacorlu M, Senturk F, Karacorlu SA, Uysal O. Microperimetric changes after intravitreal bevacizumab injection for exudative age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90: 71-5.
39. Parravano M, Oddone F, Tedeschi M, et al. Retinal functional changes measured by microperimetry in neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with ranibizumab: 24-month results. Retina. 2010;30: 1017-24.
40. Prager F, Michels S, Simader C, Geitzenauer W, Schmidt-Erfurth U. Changes in retinal sensitivity in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration after systemic bevacizumab (avastin) therapy. Retina. 2008;28: 682-8.
41. Cideciyan AV, Swider M, Aleman TS, et al. Macular function in macular degenerations: repeatability of microperimetry as a potential outcome measure for ABCA4-associated retinopathy trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53: 841-52.
42. Greenstein VC, Duncker T, Holopigian K, et al. Structural and functional changes associated with normal and abnormal fundus autofluorescence in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Retina. 2012;32: 349-57.
43. Popovic P, Jarc-Vidmar M, Hawlina M. Abnormal fundus auto-fluorescence in relation to retinal function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243: 1018-27.
44. Wakabayashi T, Sawa M, Gomi F, Tsujikawa M. Correlation of fundus autofluorescence with photoreceptor morphology and functional changes in eyes with retinitis pigmentosa. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88:e177-83.
45. Burke TR, Rhee DW, Smith RT, et al. Quantification of peripapil-lary sparing and macular involvement in Stargardt disease (STGD1). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 8006-15.
46. Testa F, Rossi S, Sodi A, et al. Correlation between photoreceptor layer integrity and visual function in patients with Stargardt disease: implications for gene therapy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53: 4409-15.
47. Hood DC, Lin CE, Lazow MA, Locke KG, Zhang X, Birch DG. Thickness of receptor and post-receptor retinal layers in patients with retinitis pigmentosa measured with frequency-domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50: 2328-36.