PURPOSE: To design a contrast sensitivity perimetry (CSP) protocol that decreases variability in glaucomatous defects while maintaining good sensitivity to glaucomatous loss. METHODS: Twenty patients with glaucoma and 20 control subjects were tested with a CSP protocol implemented on a monitor-based testing station. In the protocol 26 locations were tested over the central visual field with Gabor patches with a peak spatial frequency of 0.4 cyc/deg and a two-dimensional spatial Gaussian envelope, with most of the energy concentrated within a 4 degrees circular region. Threshold was estimated by a staircase method: Patients and 10 age-similar control subjects were also tested on conventional automated perimetry (CAP), with the 24-2 pattern with the SITA Standard testing strategy. The neuroretinal rim area of the patients was measured with a retinal tomograph (Retina Tomograph II [HRT]; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). A Bland-Altman analysis of agreement was used to assess test-retest variability, compare depth of defect shown by the two perimetric tests, and investigate the relations between contrast sensitivity and neuroretinal rim area. RESULTS: Variability showed less dependence on defect depth for CSP than for CAP (z = 9.3, P < 0.001). Defect depth was similar for CAP and CSP when averaged by quadrant (r = 0.26, P > 0.13). The relation between defect depth and rim area was more consistent with CSP than with CAP (z = 9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of CSP was successful in reducing test-retest variability in glaucomatous defects. CSP was in general agreement with CAP in terms of depth of defect and was in better agreement than CAP with HRT-determined rim area.
PURPOSE: To design a contrast sensitivity perimetry (CSP) protocol that decreases variability in glaucomatous defects while maintaining good sensitivity to glaucomatous loss. METHODS: Twenty patients with glaucoma and 20 control subjects were tested with a CSP protocol implemented on a monitor-based testing station. In the protocol 26 locations were tested over the central visual field with Gabor patches with a peak spatial frequency of 0.4 cyc/deg and a two-dimensional spatial Gaussian envelope, with most of the energy concentrated within a 4 degrees circular region. Threshold was estimated by a staircase method: Patients and 10 age-similar control subjects were also tested on conventional automated perimetry (CAP), with the 24-2 pattern with the SITA Standard testing strategy. The neuroretinal rim area of the patients was measured with a retinal tomograph (Retina Tomograph II [HRT]; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). A Bland-Altman analysis of agreement was used to assess test-retest variability, compare depth of defect shown by the two perimetric tests, and investigate the relations between contrast sensitivity and neuroretinal rim area. RESULTS: Variability showed less dependence on defect depth for CSP than for CAP (z = 9.3, P < 0.001). Defect depth was similar for CAP and CSP when averaged by quadrant (r = 0.26, P > 0.13). The relation between defect depth and rim area was more consistent with CSP than with CAP (z = 9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of CSP was successful in reducing test-retest variability in glaucomatous defects. CSP was in general agreement with CAP in terms of depth of defect and was in better agreement than CAP with HRT-determined rim area.
Authors: Paul H Artes; Donna M Hutchison; Marcelo T Nicolela; Raymond P LeBlanc; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: William H Swanson; Mitchell W Dul; Douglas G Horner; Tiffany Liu; Irene Tran Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 4.799