PURPOSE: To assess the spatial distribution of glaucomatous visual field defects (VFDs) obtained with regionally condensed stimulus arrangements. METHODS: Sixty-three eyes of 63 glaucoma subjects were examined with threshold-estimating automated static perimetry (full threshold 4-2-1 dB strategy with at least three reversals) on an automatic campimeter or a full-field perimeter. Stimuli were added by the examiner to regionally enhance spatial resolution in regions that were suspicious for a glaucomatous VFD. These regions were characterized by contiguous local VFDs, attributable to the retinal nerve fiber bundle course according to the impression of the examiner. The added stimulus locations were subsets of a predefined, dense perimetric grid. All VFD locations with P < 0.05 (total deviation plots) were assessed by superimposing the visual field records of all participants. RESULTS: Glaucomatous VFD loss occurred more frequently in the upper than in the lower hemifield, with a typical retinal nerve fiber-related pattern and a preference of the nasal step region. More than 50% of the eyes with predominantly mild to moderate glaucomatous field loss showed defective locations in the immediate superior paracentral region within an eccentricity of 3°. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional thresholding white-on-white perimetry with regionally enhanced spatial resolution reveals that glaucomatous visual field loss affects the immediate paracentral area, especially the upper hemifield, in many eyes with only mild to moderate glaucomatous visual field loss. Detailed knowledge about the spatial pattern and the local frequency distribution of glaucomatous VFDs is an essential prerequisite for creating regionally condensed stimulus arrangements for adequate detection and follow-up of functional glaucomatous damage.
PURPOSE: To assess the spatial distribution of glaucomatous visual field defects (VFDs) obtained with regionally condensed stimulus arrangements. METHODS: Sixty-three eyes of 63 glaucoma subjects were examined with threshold-estimating automated static perimetry (full threshold 4-2-1 dB strategy with at least three reversals) on an automatic campimeter or a full-field perimeter. Stimuli were added by the examiner to regionally enhance spatial resolution in regions that were suspicious for a glaucomatous VFD. These regions were characterized by contiguous local VFDs, attributable to the retinal nerve fiber bundle course according to the impression of the examiner. The added stimulus locations were subsets of a predefined, dense perimetric grid. All VFD locations with P < 0.05 (total deviation plots) were assessed by superimposing the visual field records of all participants. RESULTS:Glaucomatous VFD loss occurred more frequently in the upper than in the lower hemifield, with a typical retinal nerve fiber-related pattern and a preference of the nasal step region. More than 50% of the eyes with predominantly mild to moderate glaucomatous field loss showed defective locations in the immediate superior paracentral region within an eccentricity of 3°. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional thresholding white-on-white perimetry with regionally enhanced spatial resolution reveals that glaucomatous visual field loss affects the immediate paracentral area, especially the upper hemifield, in many eyes with only mild to moderate glaucomatous visual field loss. Detailed knowledge about the spatial pattern and the local frequency distribution of glaucomatous VFDs is an essential prerequisite for creating regionally condensed stimulus arrangements for adequate detection and follow-up of functional glaucomatous damage.
Authors: Pamela A Sample; Michael H Goldbaum; Kwokleung Chan; Catherine Boden; Te-Won Lee; Christiana Vasile; Andreas G Boehm; Terrence Sejnowski; Chris A Johnson; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Anne J Lee; Jie Jin Wang; Elena Rochtchina; Paul Healey; Ee-Munn Chia; Paul Mitchell Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: John L Keltner; Chris A Johnson; Kimberly E Cello; Mary A Edwards; Shannan E Bandermann; Michael A Kass; Mae O Gordon Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2003-05
Authors: Ulrich Schiefer; Mark Flad; Florian Stumpp; Alexander Malsam; Jens Paetzold; Reinhard Vonthein; P Oliver Denk; Pamela A Sample Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2003-04
Authors: Eytan Z Blumenthal; Pamela A Sample; Charles C Berry; Alexander C Lee; Christopher A Girkin; Linda Zangwill; Joseph Caprioli; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Pamela A Sample; Kwokleung Chan; Catherine Boden; Te-Won Lee; Eytan Z Blumenthal; Robert N Weinreb; Antje Bernd; John Pascual; Jiucang Hao; Terrence Sejnowski; Michael H Goldbaum Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Anastasia Slobodnick; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Christopher C Teng; Robert Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ilana Traynis; Carlos G De Moraes; Ali S Raza; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Henriët Springelkamp; Kyungmoo Lee; Roger C W Wolfs; Gabriëlle H S Buitendijk; Wishal D Ramdas; Albert Hofman; Johannes R Vingerling; Caroline C W Klaver; Michael D Abràmoff; Nomdo M Jansonius Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Ashley Sun; Ravivarn Jarukasetphon; Rashmi Rajshekhar; Lynn Shi; Dana M Blumberg; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389