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
  • [41] Comparison of isolated-check visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma and high-risk ocular hypertension
    Xiang-Wu Chen
    Ying-Xi Zhao
    International Journal of Ophthalmology, 2017, (04) : 599 - 604
  • [42] Reproducibility of visual field end point criteria for standard automated perimetry, full-threshold, and Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm strategies: Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study
    Bourne, Rupert R. A.
    Jahanbakhsh, Keyvan
    Boden, Catherine
    Zangwill, Linda M.
    Hoffmann, Esther M.
    Medeiros, Felipe A.
    Weinreb, Robert N.
    Sample, Pamela A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2007, 144 (06) : 908 - 913
  • [43] Comparison of 24-2 Faster, Fast, and Standard Programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for Perimetry in Patients With Manifest and Suspect Glaucoma
    Thulasidas, Mithun
    Patyal, Sagarika
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2020, 29 (11) : 1070 - 1076
  • [44] Retinal Ganglion Cell Content Underlying Standard Automated Perimetry Size I to V Visual Sensitivities in the Non-Human Primate Experimental Glaucoma Model
    Srinivasan, Varsha Venkata
    Carter-Dawson, Louvenia
    Patel, Nimesh B.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2024, 65 (08) : 22
  • [45] Visual Field Tests for Glaucoma Patients With Initial Macular Damage: Comparison Between Frequency-doubling Technology and Standard Automated Perimetry Using 24-2 or 10-2 Visual Fields
    Park, Hae-Young Lopilly
    Lee, Jiyoung
    Park, Chan Kee
    JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2018, 27 (07) : 627 - 634