Comparison of Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. Part I: Threshold Values and Repeatability

被引:19
|
作者
Murray, Ian C. [1 ]
Perperidis, Antonios [1 ,2 ]
Cameron, Lorraine A. [1 ,3 ]
McTrusty, Alice D. [1 ,3 ]
Brash, Harry M. [1 ]
Tatham, Andrew J. [4 ]
Agarwal, Pankaj K. [4 ]
Fleck, Brian W. [1 ,4 ,5 ]
Minns, Robert A. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Heriot Watt Univ, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[3] Glasgow Caledonian Univ, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
[4] Princess Alexandra Eye Pavil, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[5] Royal Hosp Sick Children, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
来源
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
SVOP; eye movement perimetry; visual field; saccadic eye movements; TEST-RETEST VARIABILITY; VISUAL-FIELDS; SUPRATHRESHOLD; SITA;
D O I
10.1167/tvst.6.5.3
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: We evaluated threshold saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and compared results to standard automated perimetry (SAP). Methods: A cross-sectional study was done including 162 subjects (103 with glaucoma and 59 healthy subjects) recruited at a university hospital. All subjects underwent SAP and threshold SVOP. SVOP uses an eye tracker to monitor eye movement responses to stimuli and determines if stimuli have been perceived based on the vector of the gaze response. The test pattern used was equivalent to SAP 24-2 and stimuli were presented at Goldmann III. Average and pointwise sensitivity values obtained from both tests were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Two versions of SVOP were evaluated. Results: A total of 124 tests were performed with SAP and SVOP version 2. There was excellent agreement between mean threshold values obtained using SVOP and SAP (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). Excluding the blind spot, correlation between SVOP and SAP individual test point sensitivity ranged from 0.61 to 0.90, with 48 of 54 (89%) test points > 0.70. Overall SVOP showed good repeatability with a Pearson correlation of 0.88. The repeatability on a point-by-point basis ranged from 0.66 to 0.98, with 45 of 54 points (83%) > 0.80. Repeatability of SAP was 0.87, ranging from 0.69 to 0.96, with 47 of 54 (87%) points > 0.80. Conclusion: Eye-tracking perimetry is repeatable and compares well with the current gold standard of SAP. The technique has advantages over conventional perimetry and could be useful for evaluating glaucomatous visual field loss, particularly in patients who may struggle with conventional perimetry.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [21] A Comparison of Catch Trial Methods Used in Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients
    Wall, Michael
    Doyle, Carrie K.
    Brito, Caridad F.
    Woodward, Kimberly R.
    Johnson, Chris A.
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2008, 17 (08) : 626 - 630
  • [22] Agreement and repeatability for standard automated perimetry and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study
    Ng, Diana
    Zangwill, Linda M.
    Racette, Lyne
    Bowd, Christopher
    Pascual, John P.
    Bourne, Rupert R. A.
    Boden, Catherine
    Weinreb, Robert N.
    Sample, Pamela A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2006, 142 (03) : 381 - 386
  • [23] Standard automated perimetry sita and full-threshold strategies compared to SWAP and FDT in glaucoma
    Boden, C
    Sample, PA
    Weinreb, RN
    PERIMETRY UPDATE 2002/2003, 2004, : 149 - 150
  • [24] Comparison of Visual Field Results of Humphrey Matrix Perimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry with SITA Strategy in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Subjects
    Yilmaz, Pinar Topcu
    Bozkurt, Banu
    Irkec, Murat
    TURK OFTALMOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2011, 41 (02): : 98 - 103
  • [25] Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma
    Artes, PH
    Hutchison, DM
    Nicolela, MT
    LeBlanc, RP
    Chauhan, BC
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2005, 46 (07) : 2451 - 2457
  • [26] Comparison of the Variability of Standard Automated Perimetry between Preperimetric Glaucoma Patients and Normal Controls
    Kim, Sung In
    Park, Hae-Young Lopilly
    Park, Chan Kee
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2018, 59 (01): : 44 - 49
  • [27] Octopus Standard Automated Perimetry, Pulsar Perimetry, Moorfields Motion Displacement Test and Heidelberg Retinal Tomography in Glaucoma Detection - A Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy
    Oleszczuk, J. D.
    Bergin, C.
    Schnyder, C.
    Crabb, D.
    Sharkawi, E.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2010, 51 (13)
  • [28] Comparison of matrix frequency-doubling technology perimetry and standard automated perimetry in monitoring the development of visual field defects for glaucoma suspect eyes
    Hu, Rongrong
    Wang, Chenkun
    Racette, Lyne
    PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (05):
  • [29] Comparison and Correlation of Retinal Sensitivity Between Microperimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Low-tension Glaucoma
    Tepelus, Tudor C.
    Song, Sheena
    Nittala, Muneeswar G.
    Nassisi, Marco
    Sadda, SriniVas R.
    Chopra, Vikas
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2020, 29 (10) : 975 - 980
  • [30] The Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study. II. A prospective comparison of frequency doubling perimetry, the GDx nerve fibre analyser and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma suspect patients
    Jansonius, Nomdo M.
    Heeg, Govert P.
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2009, 87 (04) : 429 - 432