PURPOSE: We compared the detection of visual field progression and its rate of change between standard automated perimetry (SAP) and Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry (FDTP) in glaucoma. METHODS: We followed prospectively 217 eyes (179 glaucoma and 38 normal eyes) for SAP and FDTP testing at 4-month intervals for ≥36 months. Pointwise linear regression analysis was performed. A test location was considered progressing when the rate of change of visual sensitivity was ≤-1 dB/y for nonedge and ≤-2 dB/y for edge locations. Three criteria were used to define progression in an eye: ≥3 adjacent nonedge test locations (conservative), any three locations (moderate), and any two locations (liberal) progressed. The rate of change of visual sensitivity was calculated with linear mixed models. RESULTS: Of the 217 eyes, 6.1% and 3.9% progressed with the conservative criteria, 14.5% and 5.6% of eyes progressed with the moderate criteria, and 20.1% and 11.7% of eyes progressed with the liberal criteria by FDTP and SAP, respectively. Taking all test locations into consideration (total, 54 × 179 locations), FDTP detected more progressing locations (176) than SAP (103, P < 0.001). The rate of change of visual field mean deviation (MD) was significantly faster for FDTP (all with P < 0.001). No eyes showed progression in the normal group using the conservative and the moderate criteria. CONCLUSIONS: With a faster rate of change of visual sensitivity, FDTP detected more progressing eyes than SAP at a comparable level of specificity. Frequency doubling technology perimetry can provide a useful alternative to monitor glaucoma progression.
PURPOSE: We compared the detection of visual field progression and its rate of change between standard automated perimetry (SAP) and Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry (FDTP) in glaucoma. METHODS: We followed prospectively 217 eyes (179 glaucoma and 38 normal eyes) for SAP and FDTP testing at 4-month intervals for ≥36 months. Pointwise linear regression analysis was performed. A test location was considered progressing when the rate of change of visual sensitivity was ≤-1 dB/y for nonedge and ≤-2 dB/y for edge locations. Three criteria were used to define progression in an eye: ≥3 adjacent nonedge test locations (conservative), any three locations (moderate), and any two locations (liberal) progressed. The rate of change of visual sensitivity was calculated with linear mixed models. RESULTS: Of the 217 eyes, 6.1% and 3.9% progressed with the conservative criteria, 14.5% and 5.6% of eyes progressed with the moderate criteria, and 20.1% and 11.7% of eyes progressed with the liberal criteria by FDTP and SAP, respectively. Taking all test locations into consideration (total, 54 × 179 locations), FDTP detected more progressing locations (176) than SAP (103, P < 0.001). The rate of change of visual field mean deviation (MD) was significantly faster for FDTP (all with P < 0.001). No eyes showed progression in the normal group using the conservative and the moderate criteria. CONCLUSIONS: With a faster rate of change of visual sensitivity, FDTP detected more progressing eyes than SAP at a comparable level of specificity. Frequency doubling technology perimetry can provide a useful alternative to monitor glaucoma progression.
Entities:
Keywords:
frequency doubling technology perimetry; glaucoma; standard automated perimetry