Literature DB >> 18344756

A comparison of semiautomated versus manual Goldmann kinetic perimetry in patients with visually significant glaucoma.

Adriana M Ramirez1, Craig J Chaya, Lynn K Gordon, Joann A Giaconi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if semiautomated kinetic perimetry (SKP) is reproducible and comparable to Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry (GVF).
METHODS: Glaucoma patients were recruited to perform visual field testing using GVF and SKP. Specific isopters were tested, quantified, and compared. Visual field patterns were analyzed for shape and defect.
RESULTS: Ten patients (16 eyes) underwent visual field studies using SKP and GVF, and 8 patients completed a second SKP on a different day. Individual isopter areas were similar between GVF and SKP, although 60% of isopters were larger on SKP by an average of 15%. This was statistically significant for the smaller isopters, I4e (P=0.02) and I2e (P=0.05). Retesting with SKP on a separate day, showed similar isopter areas (P values=0.3 to 1.0), however, the exact location of isopters in degrees from central fixation tended to vary with the smaller test object sizes. Isopter position in degrees from the central axis agreed in at least 3 quadrants in approximately 65% of fields compared. SKP visual field defects and patterns were similar between test strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: SKP and GVF testing produce similar visual field results in glaucoma patients, and SKP testing seems to be reliable and reproducible in this population. However, overlapping isopters, typically associated with nonorganic vision loss, and jagged isopters were sometimes observed in SKP visual fields. Further study of SKP is needed to explore these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18344756     DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31814b9985

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Glaucoma        ISSN: 1057-0829            Impact factor:   2.503


  6 in total

1.  Variability and Errors of Manually Digitized Goldmann Visual Fields.

Authors:  Michael P Barry; Ava K Bittner; Liancheng Yang; Rebecca Marcus; Mian Haris Iftikhar; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Accuracy of kinetic perimetry assessment with the Humphrey 850; an exploratory comparative study.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Lauren R Hepworth; Kerry L Hanna; Meera Mistry; Carmel P Noonan
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Reliability of Semiautomated Kinetic Perimetry (SKP) and Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry in Children and Adults With Retinal Dystrophies.

Authors:  Claire S Barnes; Ronald A Schuchard; David G Birch; Gislin Dagnelie; Leah Wood; Robert K Koenekoop; Ava K Bittner
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.283

4.  Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.

Authors:  Karthika Bhaskaran; Swati Phuljhele; Pawan Kumar; Rohit Saxena; Dewang Angmo; Pradeep Sharma
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.848

5.  Development of core outcome sets and core outcome measures for central visual impairment, visual field loss and ocular motility disorders due to stroke: a Delphi and consensus study.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Lauren R Hepworth; Jamie J Kirkham
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann kinetic visual fields.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Alison Rowlands
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.