Mari Sakamoto1, Hiromasa Sawamura2, Makoto Aihara2, Toshiaki Goseki3,4, Tetsuya Ikeda3,5, Hitoshi Ishikawa3, Makoto Nakamura6. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Ophthalmology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan. mariwsakamoto@people.kobe-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Japan. 4. International University of Health and Welfare Atami Hospital, Atami, Japan. 5. Sanno Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 6. Department of Surgery, Division of Ophthalmology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the ability of imo binocular random single-eye test (BRSET) to detect visual field (VF) defects due to chiasmal and postchiasmal lesions (C/PCLs) with a Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) monocular test. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study METHODS: This study enrolled 40 patients with C/PCLs and measured their VFs using both imo BRSET and HFA monocular test. The VFs were classified into three groups using the cluster criterion: 1) bitemporal group, 2) homonymous group, and 3) others. The agreement and correlation of VF results between imo and HFA were analyzed using the Bland-Altman plot and Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The VFs of 34 patients were analyzed and classified. There were 13 patients in the bitemporal, 6 in the homonymous, and 15 in the others group. BRSET showed a significantly shorter test duration than HFA. The imo systematically yielded a lower sensitivity than HFA. The average sensitivity at each test location correlated well between the perimeters in all groups, with the correlation coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98. Bland-Altman plots showed wider limits of agreement in the affected quadrants compared to the unaffected quadrants in the bitemporal and homonymous groups. The fixation loss rate did not differ between the perimeters, but there were significant differences in the false positive and false negative rates between perimeters. CONCLUSION: BRSET detected VF defects due to C/PCLs as accurately as the HFA monocular test with a shorter test duration.
PURPOSE: To compare the ability of imo binocular random single-eye test (BRSET) to detect visual field (VF) defects due to chiasmal and postchiasmal lesions (C/PCLs) with a Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) monocular test. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter study METHODS: This study enrolled 40 patients with C/PCLs and measured their VFs using both imo BRSET and HFA monocular test. The VFs were classified into three groups using the cluster criterion: 1) bitemporal group, 2) homonymous group, and 3) others. The agreement and correlation of VF results between imo and HFA were analyzed using the Bland-Altman plot and Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The VFs of 34 patients were analyzed and classified. There were 13 patients in the bitemporal, 6 in the homonymous, and 15 in the others group. BRSET showed a significantly shorter test duration than HFA. The imo systematically yielded a lower sensitivity than HFA. The average sensitivity at each test location correlated well between the perimeters in all groups, with the correlation coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98. Bland-Altman plots showed wider limits of agreement in the affected quadrants compared to the unaffected quadrants in the bitemporal and homonymous groups. The fixation loss rate did not differ between the perimeters, but there were significant differences in the false positive and false negative rates between perimeters. CONCLUSION: BRSET detected VF defects due to C/PCLs as accurately as the HFA monocular test with a shorter test duration.