Donald C Hood1, Matthew Nguyen2, Alyssa C Ehrlich2, Ali S Raza3, Ieva Sliesoraityte4, Carlos G De Moraes5, Robert Ritch6, Ulrich Schiefer7. 1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY ; Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY. 2. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY. 3. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY ; Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Columbia University, New York, NY. 4. Centre for Ophthalmology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany ; Institut de la Vision, INSERM CIC 503, Paris, France. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY. 6. Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY ; Department of Ophthalmology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY. 7. Centre for Ophthalmology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany ; Competence Centre "Vision Research", University of Applied Sciences, Aalen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To use high-density perimetry to test a model of local glaucomatous damage to the macula (central visual field [VF]) and to assess the optimal placement of stimuli used to detect this damage. METHODS: Thirty-one eyes of 31 patients showing glaucomatous arcuate damage within the upper hemifield of the central 10° were tested with a customized VF with double the density of the 10-2 (2° grid) test. Individual plots of total deviation (TD) values were generated. A model, which predicts a "vulnerable macular region" (VMR) and a "less vulnerable macular region" (LVMR), was compared with the TD values without (standard model) and with (aligned model) scaling and rotating to align it with the patient's fovea-to-disc axis. Computer simulations assessed alternative VF locations for adding two points to the 6° grid pattern (e.g., 24-2 VF) typically used in the clinic. RESULTS: There were significantly more abnormal points in the VMR than in the LVMR. However, the aligned model did no better than the standard model in describing the data. The optimal locations for adding two points to the 24-2 (6° grid) test were (-1°, 5°) and (1°, 5°), both within the VMR. CONCLUSIONS: The model describes the region of the superior VF vulnerable to arcuate damage. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The model can be used to determine the optimal locations for adding test points to the commonly used VF test pattern (24-2). It does not seem necessary to adjust the location of VF test points based upon interindividual differences in the fovea-to-disc axis.
PURPOSE: To use high-density perimetry to test a model of local glaucomatous damage to the macula (central visual field [VF]) and to assess the optimal placement of stimuli used to detect this damage. METHODS: Thirty-one eyes of 31 patients showing glaucomatous arcuate damage within the upper hemifield of the central 10° were tested with a customized VF with double the density of the 10-2 (2° grid) test. Individual plots of total deviation (TD) values were generated. A model, which predicts a "vulnerable macular region" (VMR) and a "less vulnerable macular region" (LVMR), was compared with the TD values without (standard model) and with (aligned model) scaling and rotating to align it with the patient's fovea-to-disc axis. Computer simulations assessed alternative VF locations for adding two points to the 6° grid pattern (e.g., 24-2 VF) typically used in the clinic. RESULTS: There were significantly more abnormal points in the VMR than in the LVMR. However, the aligned model did no better than the standard model in describing the data. The optimal locations for adding two points to the 24-2 (6° grid) test were (-1°, 5°) and (1°, 5°), both within the VMR. CONCLUSIONS: The model describes the region of the superior VF vulnerable to arcuate damage. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The model can be used to determine the optimal locations for adding test points to the commonly used VF test pattern (24-2). It does not seem necessary to adjust the location of VF test points based upon interindividual differences in the fovea-to-disc axis.
Entities:
Keywords:
glaucoma; macula; perimetry; test point location; visual fields
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: Sung Chul Park; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Christopher C W Teng; Celso Tello; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Paul H Artes; Balwantray C Chauhan; John L Keltner; Kim E Cello; Chris A Johnson; Douglas R Anderson; Mae O Gordon; Michael A Kass Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-12
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: Xinbo Zhang; Nils Loewen; Ou Tan; David S Greenfield; Joel S Schuman; Rohit Varma; David Huang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel; Deborah Goren; Steven L Mansberger; William H Swanson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Tutul Chakravarti; Mohamad Moghadam; James A Proudfoot; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher Bowd; Linda M Zangwill Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Lola M Grillo; Diane L Wang; Rithambara Ramachandran; Alyssa C Ehrlich; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Lisa Nivison-Smith; Barbara Zangerl; Agnes Yiu Jeung Choi; Bryan W Jones; Rebecca L Pfeiffer; Robert E Marc; Michael Kalloniatis Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.799