BACKGROUND: To evaluate the relationship between short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) and the standard white-on-white automated perimetry (W-W) in detection of early glaucomatous visual field deficits. METHODS: Twenty-four patients suspected of having glaucoma and who had experience with automated visual field tests were evaluated by SWAP and standard W-W perimetry. Results of the mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), pattern deviation probability plot, test reliability, and test time were compared. RESULTS: The average MD in the SWAP group was significantly higher than that in the W-W group (SWAP: -6.55 db, W-W: -2.69 db, p<0.001). A significant difference also existed in PSD between the 2 groups (SWAP: 3.49 db, W-W: 2.40 db, p<0.001). The test time was longer in the SWAP group than in the W-W group (SWAP: 15 min, 6 s; W-W: 13 min, 8 s, p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in test reliability or in the number of points that were depressed below the 1% and 5% sensitivity levels on the pattern deviation probability plot. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that greater MD and PSD were demonstrated with SWAP. The test time was longer for SWAP. However, in order to conclude that SWAP is an early indicator of glaucomatous damage, longer follow-up and further analyses are required.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the relationship between short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) and the standard white-on-white automated perimetry (W-W) in detection of early glaucomatous visual field deficits. METHODS: Twenty-four patients suspected of having glaucoma and who had experience with automated visual field tests were evaluated by SWAP and standard W-W perimetry. Results of the mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), pattern deviation probability plot, test reliability, and test time were compared. RESULTS: The average MD in the SWAP group was significantly higher than that in the W-W group (SWAP: -6.55 db, W-W: -2.69 db, p<0.001). A significant difference also existed in PSD between the 2 groups (SWAP: 3.49 db, W-W: 2.40 db, p<0.001). The test time was longer in the SWAP group than in the W-W group (SWAP: 15 min, 6 s; W-W: 13 min, 8 s, p<0.001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in test reliability or in the number of points that were depressed below the 1% and 5% sensitivity levels on the pattern deviation probability plot. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that greater MD and PSD were demonstrated with SWAP. The test time was longer for SWAP. However, in order to conclude that SWAP is an early indicator of glaucomatous damage, longer follow-up and further analyses are required.