advertisement
Abstract #20014 Published in IGR 9-4
Long-term fluctuation of standard automatic perimetry, pulsar perimetry and frequency-doubling technology in early glaucoma diagnosis
Gonzalez-Hernandez M; Gonzalez de la Rosa M; Rodriguez de la Vega R; Hernandez-Vidal AOphthalmic Research 2007; 39: 338-343
PURPOSE: Analyze the stability and accuracy of three perimetric techniques. METHODS: A total of 104 stable eyes (65 subjects) with ocular hypertension and early glaucoma [group G, mean defect = 1.08 dB, SD = 2.0, in standard TOP automatic perimetry (SAP)] were examined five times during 18 months using: (a) SAP; (b) Pulsar temporal modulation perimetry (T30W); and (c) frequency-doubling technology (FDT N30). Ninety eyes from 90 normal controls were compared with the first set of examinations of group G. RESULTS: The learning effect was minimal in the three techniques but higher in Pulsar (1.0 src, p < 0.05) than in SAP and FDT (0.4 dB). Long-term fluctuation (F) was significantly higher in FDT (3.1 dB, SD = 1.4, p < 0.0001) than in SAP (2.3 dB, SD = 1.1) and in Pulsar (1.9 src, SD = 0.7). Pulsar and FDT reduce F when increasing the number of examinations. F seems equivalent in SAP and FDT and lower in Pulsar, considering small-scale differences of the three perimeters. CONCLUSIONS: A slight learning effect would be expected on FDT and SAP in patients with previous experience with SAP. The stability and sensitivity of Pulsar is greater than on the other two systems. For early diagnosis of glaucoma it is essential to prove the reproducibility and coincidence of perimetric results.
Dr. M. Gonzalez-Hernandez, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Universidad de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
Classification:
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
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)
