advertisement
Abstract #74219 Published in IGR 19-1
Glaucoma progression detection with frequency doubling technology (FDT) compared to standard automated perimetry (SAP) in the Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study
Wesselink C; Jansonius NMOphthalmic and Physiological Optics 2017; 37: 594-601
PURPOSE: To determine the usefulness of frequency doubling perimetry (FDT) for progression detection in glaucoma, compared to standard automated perimetry (SAP). METHODS: Data were used from 150 eyes of 150 glaucoma patients from the Groningen Longitudinal Glaucoma Study. After baseline, SAP was performed approximately yearly; FDT every other year. First and last visit had to contain both tests. Using linear regression, progression velocities were calculated for SAP (Humphrey Field Analyzer) mean deviation (MD) and FDT MD and the number of test locations with a total deviation probability below p < 0.01 (TD). Progression velocity tertiles were determined and eyes were classified as slowly, intermediately, or fast progressing for both techniques. Comparison between SAP and FDT classifications were made using a Mantel Haenszel chi-square test. Longitudinal signal-to-noise ratios (LSNRs) were calculated, per patient and per technique, defined as progression velocity divided by the standard deviation of the residuals. RESULTS: Mean (SD) follow-up was 6.4 (1.7) years; median (interquartile range [IQR]) baseline SAP MD -6.6 (-14.2 to -3.6) dB. On average 8.2 and 4.5 tests were performed for SAP and FDT, respectively. Median (IQR) MD slope was -0.16 (-0.46 to +0.02) dB/year for SAP and -0.05 (-0.39 to +0.17) dB/year for FDT. Mantel Haenszel chi-squares of SAP MD vs FDT MD and TD were 12.5 (p < 0.001) and 15.8 (p < 0.001), respectively. LSNRs for SAP MD (median -0.17 yr-1 ) were better than those for FDT MD (-0.04 yr-1 ; p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: FDT may be a useful technique for monitoring glaucoma progression in patients who cannot perform SAP reliably.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Full articleClassification:
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)
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.20 Progression (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods)
