C Gustavo De Moraes1, Donald C Hood2, Abinaya Thenappan3, Christopher A Girkin4, Felipe A Medeiros5, Robert N Weinreb5, Linda M Zangwill5, Jeffrey M Liebmann6. 1. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: gustavo.demoraes@columbia.edu. 2. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; Columbia University, New York, New York. 3. Columbia University, New York, New York. 4. School of Medicine, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, California. 6. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of visual field defects in glaucomatous eyes, glaucoma suspects, and ocular hypertensives with 24-2 and 10-2 visual fields. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with or suspected glaucoma tested with 24-2 and 10-2. Patients were classified into 3 groups on the basis of the presence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON) and 24-2 visual field abnormalities: early glaucoma (GON and abnormal visual field, mean deviation >-6 decibels [dB]), glaucoma suspects (GON and normal visual field), and ocular hypertensives (normal disc, normal visual field, and intraocular pressure >22 mmHg). For the classification of visual field abnormalities, 24-2 and 10-2 tests performed on the same visit were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of the prevalence of abnormal 24-2 versus 10-2 visual field results based on cluster criteria in each diagnostic group. RESULTS: A total of 775 eyes (497 patients) were evaluated. A total of 364 eyes had early glaucoma, 303 eyes were glaucoma suspects, and 108 eyes were ocular hypertensives. In the glaucoma group, 16 of the 26 eyes (61.5%) classified as normal based on cluster criteria on 24-2 tests were classified as abnormal on 10-2 visual fields. In eyes with suspected glaucoma, 79 of the 200 eyes (39.5%) classified as normal on the 24-2 test were classified as abnormal on 10-2 visual fields. In ocular hypertensive eyes, 28 of the 79 eyes (35.4%) classified as normal on the 24-2 were classified as abnormal on the 10-2. Patients of African descent were more likely to have an abnormal 10-2 result (67.3 vs. 56.8%, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Central visual field damage seen on the 10-2 test is often missed with the 24-2 strategy in all groups. This finding has implications for the diagnosis of glaucoma and classification of severity.
PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of visual field defects in glaucomatous eyes, glaucoma suspects, and ocular hypertensives with 24-2 and 10-2 visual fields. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with or suspected glaucoma tested with 24-2 and 10-2. Patients were classified into 3 groups on the basis of the presence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON) and 24-2 visual field abnormalities: early glaucoma (GON and abnormal visual field, mean deviation >-6 decibels [dB]), glaucoma suspects (GON and normal visual field), and ocular hypertensives (normal disc, normal visual field, and intraocular pressure >22 mmHg). For the classification of visual field abnormalities, 24-2 and 10-2 tests performed on the same visit were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of the prevalence of abnormal 24-2 versus 10-2 visual field results based on cluster criteria in each diagnostic group. RESULTS: A total of 775 eyes (497 patients) were evaluated. A total of 364 eyes had early glaucoma, 303 eyes were glaucoma suspects, and 108 eyes were ocular hypertensives. In the glaucoma group, 16 of the 26 eyes (61.5%) classified as normal based on cluster criteria on 24-2 tests were classified as abnormal on 10-2 visual fields. In eyes with suspected glaucoma, 79 of the 200 eyes (39.5%) classified as normal on the 24-2 test were classified as abnormal on 10-2 visual fields. In ocular hypertensive eyes, 28 of the 79 eyes (35.4%) classified as normal on the 24-2 were classified as abnormal on the 10-2. Patients of African descent were more likely to have an abnormal 10-2 result (67.3 vs. 56.8%, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Central visual field damage seen on the 10-2 test is often missed with the 24-2 strategy in all groups. This finding has implications for the diagnosis of glaucoma and classification of severity.
Authors: Saif Baig; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Zhichao Wu; Ricardo Y Abe; Carolina P B Gracitelli; Eric Cabezas; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Diane L Wang; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Monica Chen; Paula Alhadeff; Ravivarn Jarukatsetphorn; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Donald C Hood; Ali S Raza; Carlos G De Moraes; Paula A Alhadeff; Juliet Idiga; Dana M Blumberg; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 3.283
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
Authors: Aakriti G Shukla; C Gustavo De Moraes; George A Cioffi; Christopher A Girkin; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Giovanni Montesano; Luca M Rossetti; Davide Allegrini; Mario R Romano; David P Crabb Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Donald C Hood; Abinaya A Thenappan; Emmanouil Tsamis; Jeffrey M Liebmann; C Gustavo De Moraes Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 5.258