PURPOSE: To compare visual sensitivity, fatigue effect, and probability plot data between Full Threshold (FT) Humphrey automated perimetry and Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard strategies in patients with optic neuropathies and hemianopias. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies and 18 patients with a relative homonymous or bitemporal hemianopia were tested with both conventional perimetry (Humphrey 24-2 program) and "back to back" SITA standard tests (SITA 1, SITA 2) to approximate the test time of the FT test conditions. Also, 28 normal subjects between the ages of 20 and 80 were tested with this protocol. The visual field quadrants with the most damage were used to evaluate any fatigue effect (i.e., possible lack of fatigue effect with SITA standard due to the shorter test time) and to compare probability plot data between FT, SITA 1, and SITA 2. Pointwise total and pattern deviation probability plot defects were weighted by degree of significance and summed. RESULTS: Test times for normal subjects were 45 seconds longer for FT than for the combined test time of SITA 1 + SITA 2. Patients' test times were 40 seconds longer for hemianopias and 90 seconds longer for optic neuropathies with FT than the combined times for two SITA tests. There were higher sensitivities found with SITA 1 compared with Full Threshold (1.06 dB, P< 0.001) and SITA 2 with Full Threshold (0.73 dB, P< 0.001) in the most damaged quadrant for the optic neuropathy patients; for the hemianopia patients the difference in values were between SITA 1 and Full Threshold (0.96 dB, P = 0.07) and between SITA 2 and Full Threshold (0.11 dB, P = 0.87). The second SITA standard test had lower sensitivity than the first SITA standard test by 0.82 dB in hemianopias and by 0.71 dB in optic neuropathy patients. Analysis of the total and pattern deviation probability plot data showed slightly more defects (number and magnitude) with SITA 1 compared to FT for both groups, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivities were higher in patients with hemianopias or optic neuropathies using SITA standard compared with FT by approximately 1 dB. The probability plot comparison suggests SITA standard is at least as good as FT for detection of visual loss in individual examinations. However, efficacy of SITA standard for serial examinations has not yet been evaluated.
PURPOSE: To compare visual sensitivity, fatigue effect, and probability plot data between Full Threshold (FT) Humphrey automated perimetry and Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard strategies in patients with optic neuropathies and hemianopias. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies and 18 patients with a relative homonymous or bitemporal hemianopia were tested with both conventional perimetry (Humphrey 24-2 program) and "back to back" SITA standard tests (SITA 1, SITA 2) to approximate the test time of the FT test conditions. Also, 28 normal subjects between the ages of 20 and 80 were tested with this protocol. The visual field quadrants with the most damage were used to evaluate any fatigue effect (i.e., possible lack of fatigue effect with SITA standard due to the shorter test time) and to compare probability plot data between FT, SITA 1, and SITA 2. Pointwise total and pattern deviation probability plot defects were weighted by degree of significance and summed. RESULTS: Test times for normal subjects were 45 seconds longer for FT than for the combined test time of SITA 1 + SITA 2. Patients' test times were 40 seconds longer for hemianopias and 90 seconds longer for optic neuropathies with FT than the combined times for two SITA tests. There were higher sensitivities found with SITA 1 compared with Full Threshold (1.06 dB, P< 0.001) and SITA 2 with Full Threshold (0.73 dB, P< 0.001) in the most damaged quadrant for the optic neuropathypatients; for the hemianopiapatients the difference in values were between SITA 1 and Full Threshold (0.96 dB, P = 0.07) and between SITA 2 and Full Threshold (0.11 dB, P = 0.87). The second SITA standard test had lower sensitivity than the first SITA standard test by 0.82 dB in hemianopias and by 0.71 dB in optic neuropathypatients. Analysis of the total and pattern deviation probability plot data showed slightly more defects (number and magnitude) with SITA 1 compared to FT for both groups, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivities were higher in patients with hemianopias or optic neuropathies using SITA standard compared with FT by approximately 1 dB. The probability plot comparison suggests SITA standard is at least as good as FT for detection of visual loss in individual examinations. However, efficacy of SITA standard for serial examinations has not yet been evaluated.
Authors: Jose Javier Garcia-Medina; Monica Del Rio-Vellosillo; Vicente Zanon-Moreno; Enrique Santos-Bueso; Roberto Gallego-Pinazo; Antonio Ferreras; Maria Dolores Pinazo-Duran Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 3.411