Vera M Mönter1, David P Crabb2, Paul H Artes3. 1. Division of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom 2Eye and Vision Research Group, Institute of Health and Community, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom. 2. Division of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom. 3. Eye and Vision Research Group, Institute of Health and Community, Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Purpose: Peripheral vision is important for mobility, balance, and guidance of attention, but standard perimetry examines only <20% of the entire visual field. We report on the relation between central and peripheral visual field damage, and on retest variability, with a simple approach for automated kinetic perimetry (AKP) of the peripheral field. Methods: Thirty patients with glaucoma (median age 68, range 59-83 years; median Mean Deviation -8.0, range -16.3-0.1 dB) performed AKP and static automated perimetry (SAP) (German Adaptive Threshold Estimation strategy, 24-2 test). Automated kinetic perimetry consisted of a fully automated measurement of a single isopter (III.1.e). Central and peripheral visual fields were measured twice on the same day. Results: Peripheral and central visual fields were only moderately related (Spearman's ρ, 0.51). Approximately 90% of test-retest differences in mean isopter radius were < ±4 deg. Relative to the range of measurements in this sample, the retest variability of AKP was similar to that of SAP. Conclusions: Patients with similar central visual field loss can have strikingly different peripheral visual fields, and therefore measuring the peripheral visual field may add clinically valuable information.
Purpose: Peripheral vision is important for mobility, balance, and guidance of attention, but standard perimetry examines only <20% of the entire visual field. We report on the relation between central and peripheral visual field damage, and on retest variability, with a simple approach for automated kinetic perimetry (AKP) of the peripheral field. Methods: Thirty patients with glaucoma (median age 68, range 59-83 years; median Mean Deviation -8.0, range -16.3-0.1 dB) performed AKP and static automated perimetry (SAP) (German Adaptive Threshold Estimation strategy, 24-2 test). Automated kinetic perimetry consisted of a fully automated measurement of a single isopter (III.1.e). Central and peripheral visual fields were measured twice on the same day. Results: Peripheral and central visual fields were only moderately related (Spearman's ρ, 0.51). Approximately 90% of test-retest differences in mean isopter radius were < ±4 deg. Relative to the range of measurements in this sample, the retest variability of AKP was similar to that of SAP. Conclusions: Patients with similar central visual field loss can have strikingly different peripheral visual fields, and therefore measuring the peripheral visual field may add clinically valuable information.
Authors: Jamie L Odden; Aleksandra Mihailovic; Michael V Boland; David S Friedman; Sheila K West; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.799