advertisement
Abstract #112058 Published in IGR 24-3
Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients
Phu J; Wang H; Kalloniatis MOphthalmic and Physiological Optics 2024; 44: 83-95
PURPOSE: To compare clinical visual field outputs in glaucoma and healthy patients returned by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and virtual reality (Virtual Field, VF) perimetry. METHODS: One eye of 54 glaucoma patients and 41 healthy subjects was prospectively tested (three times each in random order) using the HFA and VF perimeters (24-2 test grids). We extracted and compared global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), pointwise sensitivity (and calculated 'equivalent' sensitivity after accounting for differences in background luminance) and pointwise defects. Bland-Altman (mean difference [M ] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]) and intraclass correlation analyses were performed. RESULTS: The VF test was shorter (by 76 s) and had lower fixation losses (by 0.08) and false-positive rate (by 0.01) compared to the HFA (all p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlations were 0.86, 0.82 and 0.47 for MD, PSD and pointwise sensitivity between devices, respectively. Test-retest variability was higher for VF (M 0.3 dB, LoA -7.6 to 8.2 dB) compared to the HFA (M -0.3 dB, LoA -6.4 to 5.9 dB), indicating greater test-retest variability. When using each device's underlying normative database, the HFA detected, on average, 7 more defects (at the p < 0.05 level) out of the 52 test locations compared to this iteration of VF in the glaucoma cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual Field returns global results that are correlated with the HFA, but pointwise sensitivities were more variable. Differences in test-retest variability and defect detection by its current normative database raise questions about the widespread adoption of VF in lieu of the HFA.
Full article
