advertisement
Abstract #92468 Published in IGR 22-1
Comparison of 10-2 and 24-2C Test Grids for Identifying Central Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Suspect Patients
Phu J; Kalloniatis MOphthalmology 2021; 0:
PURPOSE: To compare the ability of 24-2C and 10-2 test grids in measuring visual field global indices, identifying central visual field defects, and facilitating macular structure-function analysis with OCT scans in glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: One eye from 131 glaucoma and 57 glaucoma suspect patients recruited from a referral-only, university-based glaucoma clinic. METHODS: Each subject underwent perimetric testing using 24-2C SITA-Faster and 10-2 SITA-Fast in random order, and Cirrus OCT macular imaging (Ganglion Cell Analysis) for structure-function correlations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual field global indices (mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, binarized "cluster" pass/fail, and central mean sensitivity), number and proportion of visual field defects, and structure-function concordance with the Cirrus OCT deviation map following visual field location displacement for correspondence with underlying retinal ganglion cell position. RESULTS: Global indices (mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and central mean sensitivity) were similar between both grids. The 10-2 detected more defects compared with the 24-2C (P < 0.0001 for all patients, P = 0.006 for glaucoma patients). This was preserved when analyzing the proportion of defects in the central visual field for all patients (P = 0.02) but was not significantly different for glaucoma patients (P = 0.051). The 10-2 identified more central "clusters" of 2+ contiguous points of deficit (P < 0.0001). Structure-function comparisons performed at locations where visual field and OCT test locations were colocalized revealed greater concordance of structural and functional deficits using the 10-2 (P < 0.0001). The 10-2 took a median of 201 seconds, and the 24-2C took a median of 154 seconds, corresponding to the different thresholding algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: The 24-2C and 10-2 test grids return similar global indices of visual field performance and proportionally similar amounts of central visual field loss. The additional points in the 10-2 grid return more "clusters" of defects and a greater rate of structure-function concordance compared with the 24-2C test grid. Thus, the 24-2C can identify the presence of a clustered central visual field defect using similar probability criteria, whereas the 10-2 may be more useful in comprehensively characterizing the defect and predicting central visual function.
Centre for Eye Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales; School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales. Electronic address: jack.phu@unsw.edu.au.
Full articleClassification:
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
