Geeta Behera1, Shradha Vijay Waghmare2, Amala Ramasamy3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, 605006, India. geeta.anandaraja@gmail.com. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital and Post Graduate Institute (IGGGH&PGI), Puducherry, India. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual field test results of Glaufield Lite AP901 CTS 133 (Appasamy Associates, Mannadipet Commune, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry, India, hereafter Glaufield Lite) with Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA, hereafter HFA). METHODS: A pilot study at a tertiary eye centre involving 23 normal and 24 glaucoma patients who underwent two consecutive visual field tests on (i) HFA 24-2 SITA Fast and (ii) Glaufield Lite Quick Central program. RESULTS: The mean testing time on HFA was significantly shorter than Glaufield Lite (normals: HFA: 2.75 ± 0.49 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.85 ± 0.86 min, p < 0.001; glaucoma patients: HFA: 3.45 ± 1.08 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.95 ± 0.54 min, p < 0.001). Reliability criteria were similar, but false-positivity was lower with Glaufield Lite. Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement for mean deviation (MD), [~ 2.69 units less for HFA], and acceptable agreement for pattern standard deviation (PSD) [~ 0.426 units more for HFA] between the two devices. CONCLUSION: Both perimetric techniques showed reliable test results though test duration was longer with Glaufield Lite perimetry. The MD showed poor agreement, likely due to different scales and principles used for perimetry. The PSD showed acceptable agreement, making it valid for use in glaucoma, though a direct comparison of fields from the two devices is not possible. We recommend using the same perimetry device for follow-up evaluation.
PURPOSE: To compare visual field test results of Glaufield Lite AP901 CTS 133 (Appasamy Associates, Mannadipet Commune, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry, India, hereafter Glaufield Lite) with Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA, hereafter HFA). METHODS: A pilot study at a tertiary eye centre involving 23 normal and 24 glaucoma patients who underwent two consecutive visual field tests on (i) HFA 24-2 SITA Fast and (ii) Glaufield Lite Quick Central program. RESULTS: The mean testing time on HFA was significantly shorter than Glaufield Lite (normals: HFA: 2.75 ± 0.49 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.85 ± 0.86 min, p < 0.001; glaucoma patients: HFA: 3.45 ± 1.08 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.95 ± 0.54 min, p < 0.001). Reliability criteria were similar, but false-positivity was lower with Glaufield Lite. Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement for mean deviation (MD), [~ 2.69 units less for HFA], and acceptable agreement for pattern standard deviation (PSD) [~ 0.426 units more for HFA] between the two devices. CONCLUSION: Both perimetric techniques showed reliable test results though test duration was longer with Glaufield Lite perimetry. The MD showed poor agreement, likely due to different scales and principles used for perimetry. The PSD showed acceptable agreement, making it valid for use in glaucoma, though a direct comparison of fields from the two devices is not possible. We recommend using the same perimetry device for follow-up evaluation.
Authors: C Gustavo De Moraes; Donald C Hood; Abinaya Thenappan; Christopher A Girkin; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 12.079