OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) (Humphrey, San Leandro, CA) strategy provides information comparable to that provided by the 30-2 strategy in patients with optic nerve disease. METHODS: In part A of the study, an occluder device was designed to cover the additional outer 22 points tested in the 30-2 strategy of 187 HVFs from neuro-ophthalmology patients with nonglaucomatous optic neuropathy and 206 HVFs from patients with glaucoma. This device converted the gray scale and probability plots of the 30-2 HVF to a 24-2 field. Fields were initially read using the occluder and then were read in a masked manner without the occluder and compared. In part B, 15 healthy volunteers performed both 30-2 and 24-2 HVFs. Testing time and global indices were compared. Ninety-five percent of the fields in the neuro-ophthalmology patients, 96% of the fields in patients under observation for suspected glaucoma, 98% of the fields in patients with ocular hypertension, and 100% of the fields in patients with glaucoma were read similarly with the 24-2 and 30-2 strategies. In the few cases in which a discrepancy was noted between the 24-2 and the 30-2 fields, appropriate clinical management would not have been compromised by using the 24-2 strategy. Most of these cases were in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension and very subtle nerve fiber bundle defects. The 24-2 strategy had a significantly lower pattern standard deviation (P < 0.01) and corrected pattern standard deviation (P = 0.05) than did the 30-2 strategy. In addition, the 24-2 strategy shortened the standard threshold testing time by 28% in normal volunteers (P < 0.0001 ). CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, the 24-2 testing strategy provides information comparable to that provided by the 30-2 strategy in a shorter time and with less variability. A 30-2 HVF may be warranted in patients under observation for evolving idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF) (Humphrey, San Leandro, CA) strategy provides information comparable to that provided by the 30-2 strategy in patients with optic nerve disease. METHODS: In part A of the study, an occluder device was designed to cover the additional outer 22 points tested in the 30-2 strategy of 187 HVFs from neuro-ophthalmologypatients with nonglaucomatous optic neuropathy and 206 HVFs from patients with glaucoma. This device converted the gray scale and probability plots of the 30-2 HVF to a 24-2 field. Fields were initially read using the occluder and then were read in a masked manner without the occluder and compared. In part B, 15 healthy volunteers performed both 30-2 and 24-2 HVFs. Testing time and global indices were compared. Ninety-five percent of the fields in the neuro-ophthalmologypatients, 96% of the fields in patients under observation for suspected glaucoma, 98% of the fields in patients with ocular hypertension, and 100% of the fields in patients with glaucoma were read similarly with the 24-2 and 30-2 strategies. In the few cases in which a discrepancy was noted between the 24-2 and the 30-2 fields, appropriate clinical management would not have been compromised by using the 24-2 strategy. Most of these cases were in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension and very subtle nerve fiber bundle defects. The 24-2 strategy had a significantly lower pattern standard deviation (P < 0.01) and corrected pattern standard deviation (P = 0.05) than did the 30-2 strategy. In addition, the 24-2 strategy shortened the standard threshold testing time by 28% in normal volunteers (P < 0.0001 ). CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, the 24-2 testing strategy provides information comparable to that provided by the 30-2 strategy in a shorter time and with less variability. A 30-2 HVF may be warranted in patients under observation for evolving idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Authors: Maltish M Lorenzo; Julia Devlin; Chhavi Saini; Kin-Sang Cho; Eleftherios I Paschalis; Dong Feng Chen; Rafaella Nascimento E Silva; Sherleen H Chen; Milica A Margeta; Courtney Ondeck; David Solá-Del Valle; James Chodosh; Joseph B Ciolino; Roberto Pineda; Louis R Pasquale; Lucy Q Shen Journal: Ophthalmol Glaucoma Date: 2021-08-18
Authors: Mário L R Monteiro; André L F Portes; Frederico C Moura; Dina B W Regensteiner Journal: Jpn J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 2.447
Authors: Alexandra Lajoie; Susan Koreen; Lu Wang; Steven A Kane; Thomas C Lee; David J Weissgold; Audina M Berrocal; Yunling E Du; Osode Coki; John T Flynn; Justin Starren; Michael F Chiang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Yapp; Nagi Assaad; Michael P Hennessy; Michael Kalloniatis Journal: Clin Exp Optom Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: Jack Phu; Henrietta Wang; Sephora Miao; Lydia Zhou; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Kalloniatis Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.973