Literature DB >> 24093188

Efficacy of SLO-Microperimetry and Humphrey for evaluating macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma.

Sadhana V Kulkarni1, Stuart G Coupland, David M Stitt, John Hamilton, Jonathan J Brownstein, Karim F Damji.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry (SLO-MP) and Humphrey visual fields in detecting macular sensitivity changes in advanced glaucoma.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 25 patients with advanced primary open angle glaucoma and 2 consecutive abnormal Humphrey 10-2 SITA Standard visual field tests.
METHODS: Thirty-six eyes of 25 patients with 2 consecutive abnormal Humphrey 10-2 SITA Standard (H10) visual fields were retested with a modified 10-2 SLO-MP within 3 months of the last reliable H10. A standardized grid was used to mark the macula. Primary outcome was change in mean macular sensitivity (dB; H10 and SLO-MP) in relation to mean macular retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness (µm) by SLO- optical coherence tomography (SLO-OCT). Secondary outcome was comparison of reliability indices for both tests. Linear regression was used for analysis.
RESULTS: Mean macular sensitivity was significantly lower in SLO-MP (9.33 ± 3.37 dB) than H10 (18.83 ± 6.46 dB; p < 0.0001). Mean macular RNFL thickness correlated significantly with retinal sensitivity by both SLO-MP (r = 0.39, p < 0.02) and H10 (r = 0.37, p < 0.03). Fixation losses were better controlled in SLO-MP (0.38 ± 1.1) than H10 (4.28 ± 7.9; p = 0.008). False-positive responses were similar (SLO-MP: 2.25 ± 4.53, H10: 1.78 ± 3.33; p = 0.80). A statistically significant difference was noted in the false-negative responses (SLO-MP: 26.87 ± 25.24, H10: 5.33 ± 9.70; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Macular sensitivity determined by both H10 and SLO-MP correlates significantly with mean macular RNFL thickness measured by SLO-OCT. Precise localization of the macula in SLO-MP results in lower fixation losses. Detection of denser field defects by SLO-MP results in higher false-negative responses. A larger sample size is needed to further study the value of this diagnostic tool.
© 2013 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24093188     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0008-4182            Impact factor:   1.882


  5 in total

1.  Microperimetry and optical coherence tomography imaging in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral focal ischaemic glaucoma.

Authors:  Imran H Yusuf; Jasleen K Jolly; Gokulan Ratnarajan; John F Salmon
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients.

Authors:  Harsh Kumar; Mithun Thulasidas
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-08-22       Impact factor: 1.909

3.  Intersession test-retest variability of 10-2 MAIA microperimetry in fixation-threatening glaucoma.

Authors:  Evan N Wong; William H Morgan; Fred K Chen
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-04-20

4.  Comparing Macular Thickness Measurements in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema with the Optos Spectral OCT/SLO and Heidelberg Spectralis HRA + OCT.

Authors:  Amun Sachdev; Magdalena Edington; Rupal Morjaria; Ngaihang Victor Chong
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2016-04-12

5.  Functional evaluation of the macular area in early glaucoma using microperimetry.

Authors:  Swati Phuljhele; Dewang Angmo; Lalit Aalok; Sandeep Parwal; Raj Vardhan Azad; Viney Gupta; Ramanjit Sihota
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.848

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.