Literature DB >> 18563431

The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss.

J Nevalainen1, J Paetzold, E Krapp, R Vonthein, C A Johnson, U Schiefer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: (i) To compare visual field (VF) results obtained with semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) and automated static perimetry (ASP) in patients with advanced glaucomatous VF loss, (ii) to evaluate test-retest reliability of SKP and ASP and (iii) to assess patients' preference for SKP and ASP.
METHODS: Twenty eyes of 20 patients (11 male, 9 female, aged 38 to 83 years) with advanced glaucomatous VF loss (stage III or IV according to the Aulhorn classification). Each of the 20 patients were examined in 4 sessions every 3 months with SKP (Goldmann stimulus III4e, I4e and at least one additional dimmer stimulus, within the 90 degrees visual field) and ASP within the 30 degrees VF, employing a threshold-related, supra-threshold test strategy with high spatial resolution for the same instrument (Octopus 101 perimeter, Haag-Streit Inc., Koeniz, Switzerland).
RESULTS: Visual field areas (VFA) were compared by analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) with co-variable time, patient effect and their interaction. Test-retest reliability was assessed by ratios (R) of intersection and union of VFA: The mean VFA within the 30 degrees of VF at baseline was 2,344 square degrees (deg(2)) with SKP (Goldmann stimulus III4e) and 1,844 deg(2) with ASP. The patients showed stable visual fields for both SKP and ASP. Comparison of SKP with ASP of the same sessions revealed a median ratio of intersection and union of VFA of 0.78 with the III4e stimulus and of 0.79 with the I4e stimulus. When follow-up SKPs were compared with baseline SKPs the median of the ratios was between 0.80 and 0.93 for the different isopters. The corresponding ratio of ASP's follow-up and baseline VFs was 0.81 (with the size III static stimulus). Nineteen of 20 patients preferred kinetic perimetry to static perimetry.
CONCLUSIONS: The comparability between SKP and ASP is satisfactory and within the range of the test-retest reliability of ASP. SKP shows slightly better test-retest reliability than ASP. The majority of patients with advanced glaucomatous visual field loss prefer SKP instead of ASP. SKP is a valuable alternative to ASP in monitoring advanced glaucomatous visual field loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18563431     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-008-0828-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  21 in total

1.  [Automated kinetic perimetry using different stimulus velocities].

Authors:  B Wabbels; G Kolling
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Scotoma mapping by semi-automated kinetic perimetry: the effects of stimulus properties and the speed of subjects' responses.

Authors:  Jan Dolderer; Reinhard Vonthein; Chris A Johnson; Ulrich Schiefer; William Hart
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand       Date:  2006-06

3.  Comparison of analytic algorithms for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss.

Authors:  J Katz; A Sommer; D E Gaasterland; D R Anderson
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1991-12

4.  Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss.

Authors:  Katarzyna Nowomiejska; Reinhard Vonthein; Jens Paetzold; Zbigniew Zagorski; Randy Kardon; Ulrich Schiefer
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 12.079

5.  Optimal rates of movement for kinetic perimetry.

Authors:  C A Johnson; J L Keltner
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1987-01

6.  A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter.

Authors:  R W Beck; T J Bergstrom; P R Lichter
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Automated perimetry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry.

Authors:  J Katz; J M Tielsch; H A Quigley; A Sommer
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Quantification of stato-kinetic dissociation by semi-automated perimetry.

Authors:  Jan Schiller; Jens Paetzold; Reinhard Vonthein; William M Hart; Anne Kurtenbach; Ulrich Schiefer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-11-02       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  [Comparison of SKP (semi-automated kinetic perimetry) and SASP (suprathreshold automated static perimetry) techniques in patients with advanced glaucoma].

Authors:  Katarzyna Nowomiejska; Jens Paetzold; Elke Krapp; Robert Rejdak; Zbigniew Zagórski; Ulrich Schiefer
Journal:  Klin Oczna       Date:  2004

10.  Statokinetic dissociation in lesions of the anterior visual pathways. A reappraisal of the Riddoch phenomenon.

Authors:  A B Safran; J S Glaser
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1980-02
View more
  10 in total

1.  [Functional diagnostic options for advanced and end stage glaucoma].

Authors:  A F Scheuerle; U Schiefer; K Rohrschneider
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Evaluation of kinetic programs in various automated perimeters.

Authors:  Shigeki Hashimoto; Chota Matsumoto; Mariko Eura; Sachiko Okuyama; Yoshikazu Shimomura
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability.

Authors:  Anne Bjerre; Charlotte Codina; Helen Griffiths
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2014-06-09

4.  Detection of Visual Field Loss in Pituitary Disease: Peripheral Kinetic Versus Central Static.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Christopher P Cheyne; Marta García-Fiñana; Carmel P Noonan; Claire Howard; Jayne Smith; Joanne Adeoye
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2015-05-13

5.  Feasibility and outcome of automated kinetic perimetry in children.

Authors:  Stephanie Wilscher; Bettina Wabbels; Birgit Lorenz
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 6.  [Recommendations for a standardized perimetry within the framework of epilepsy surgery].

Authors:  M T Lutz; T Mayer; U Schiefer
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.059

7.  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

8.  Comparing glaucoma progression on 24-2 and 10-2 visual field examinations.

Authors:  Harsha L Rao; Viquar U Begum; Deepa Khadka; Anil K Mandal; Sirisha Senthil; Chandra S Garudadri
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Comparison of octopus semi-automated kinetic perimetry and humphrey peripheral static perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic cases.

Authors:  Fiona J Rowe; Carmel Noonan; Melanie Manuel
Journal:  ISRN Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-07-15

10.  Visual function evaluation for low vision patients with advanced glaucoma.

Authors:  Soo Ji Jeon; Younhea Jung; Chang-Sub Jung; Hae-Young Lopilly Park; Chan Kee Park
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.817

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.