advertisement
Abstract #47669 Published in IGR 13-4
Comparing the ranges of defect measured with standard white on white and Pulsar perimetries
de la Rosa MG; Gonzalez-Hernandez M; Garcia-Feijoo J; Mendez MS; Garcia-Sanchez JArchivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmologia 2011; 86: 113-117
Objectives: Normal thresholds on Pulsar perimetry fall faster than those of standard perimetry in the peripheral visual field. Two related studies were performed. Firstly, the frequency distributions of glaucoma defects on standard automated perimetry (SAP) and the relationship of the centre and periphery (Study A) were studied first, followed by an attempt to establish the limits of pulsar perimetry (Study B). Material and method: A: frequency of defects was calculated in 78.663 SAP perimetries (G1-TOP, Octopus 1-2-3, Haag-Streit). Study B: 204 eyes with mean defect (MD-SAP) lower than 9 dB were examined 8.92 (plus or minus) 4.19 times with SAP (TOP-32, Octopus 311) and temporal modulation perimetry (T30W, Pulsar Perimeter, Haag-Streit). Results: Study A: 50.7% of the SAP examinations showed MD values lower than 9 dB and 32.7% bellow 6 dB. The MD correlation of the central 20(degrees) with the MD of the most peripheral points was r = 0.933. Study B: in cases with MD-TOP-32 lower than 6 dB, SAP had the maximum possibility of detecting defect in 0.02% of points and Pulsar in 0.29%. In subjects with MD-TOP-32 between 6 and 9 dB frequencies were 0.38% in SAP and 3.5% in Pulsar (5.1% for eccentricities higher than 20(degrees)). Conclusions: Pulsar allows detecting defects, without range limitations, in the initial half of SAP frequencies expected on glaucoma patients. In order to study the progression of deeper defects the examination should focus on the central points, where the dynamic range of both systems is more equivalent. (copyright) 2010 Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved. LA: Spanish
M. G. De La Rosa. Servicio de Oftalmologia, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Universidad de la Laguna, Islas Canarias, Spain. Email: mgdelarosa@jet.es
Classification:
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
