advertisement
AIM: To compare frequency doubling perimetry (FDP) to standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. To evaluate the reproducibility of both methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All the patients were tested (full threshold test) twice with both FDP (N-30) and Humphrey Field Analyzer II Model 750 (HFA) (30-2 procedures) in random sequence, within one day. The parameters mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and measured thresholds per quadrant and center areas, were evaluated for FDP/HFA comparison in 45 glaucoma patients. The same parameters were used for testing the reproducibility of FDP (n = 46) and HFA (N = 39). Additionally, the center and each quadrant area were checked for any deviation in the total deviation probability plots. For statistical analysis, Kappa coefficients and Bland/Altman plots were used. RESULTS: An average MD (FDP versus HFA) of -7.3 ± 5.8 dB versus -8.9 ± 7.6 dB and PSD of 6.9 ± 2.4 dB versus 6.5 ± 3.6 dB were found. Kappa coefficients denote marginal accordance (kappa: 0.11-0.38) for area deviations. In a total of 225 areas, HFA detected 191 deviations and FDP 165. HFA measured more negative deviation compared with FDP in the case of MD < -15 dB. The reproducibility was 0.98 (MD) and 0.92 (PSD) for FDP and 0.98 (MD) and 0.95 (PSD) for HFA (95% confidence interval). CONCLUSIONS: There was great conformity between FDP and HFA in glaucoma patients. HFA detected more deviations in the total deviation probability plots than FDP. There was a high reproducibility of both methods. FDP is an appropriate tool for detecting visual field loss in glaucoma patients. LA: German
Dr J. Kampmeier, Augenklinik mit Poliklinik, Universität Ulm, Prittwitzstrasse 43, 89075 Ulm, Germany
6.3.2 Posterior segment (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.3 Biomicroscopy (slitlamp))