Literature DB >> 9683149

Normal values for fundus perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope.

K Rohrschneider1, M Becker, N Schumacher, T Fendrich, H E Völcker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the normal light sensitivity values for fundus perimetry and their short time fluctuation (reliability) in normal volunteers of different ages. After the development of full-threshold static fundus perimetry, age-corrected sensitivity values for normal subjects are required to interpret results and to compare them with conventional computerized perimetry.
METHOD: Full-threshold fundus perimetry of the central field (33 x 21 degrees) by means of the scanning laser ophthalmoscope was performed on 152 eyes of 99 healthy persons aged 16 to 77 years with normal vision and no eye disease. Fixation was simultaneously documented. Light sensitivity values were evaluated according to each subject's age and test point location.
RESULTS: Linear regression analysis disclosed a significant (P < .0001) decrease of the mean sensitivity of 0.275 dB per decade of increasing age, starting with 16.6 dB at age 10 years. Standard deviation around the center of fixation was 0.287 degrees in the first decade, and it increased by 2.82 minutes of arc per decade (P < .0001). Variation in triple examinations of subjects did not differ from short time fluctuation.
CONCLUSION: Visual fields examined with fundus perimetry show reliable measurements in a range comparable to conventional computerized perimetry. There is a significant correlation between increase of age and decrease of light sensitivity in fundus perimetry. Visual fields obtained with fundus perimetry seem to correlate well with known data from computerized static threshold perimetry. It should be recognized that even in normal subjects, the stability of fixation decreases with increasing age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9683149     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(98)00065-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  13 in total

1.  [Fundus perimetry in functional diagnostics of glaucoma. Applicable in the practice?].

Authors:  K Rohrschneider; P C Issa; C Springer; A F Scheuerle
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  [Static fundus perimetry in normals. Microperimeter 1 versus SLO].

Authors:  C Springer; H E Völcker; K Rohrschneider
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  The influence of cortical, nuclear, subcortical posterior, and mixed cataract on the results of microperimetry.

Authors:  S Richter-Mueksch; S Sacu; B Weingessel; V P Vécsei-Marlovits; U Schmidt-Erfurth
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Functional changes measured with SLO in idiopathic macular holes and in macular changes secondary to premacular fibrosis. Function in macular holes.

Authors:  K Rohrschneider; S Bültmann; F E Kruse; H E Völcker
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  Fundus motion during mfERG testing.

Authors:  Jennyffer D Smith; Allison Jussel; Rachel Wang; Daniel R Coates; Wendy W Harrison
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-13       Impact factor: 2.379

6.  Retinal sensitivity is a valuable complementary measurement to visual acuity--a microperimetry study in patients with maculopathies.

Authors:  Hongting Liu; Millena G Bittencourt; Jiangxia Wang; Yasir J Sepah; Mohamed Ibrahim-Ahmed; Zubir Rentiya; Hyun Soo Kevin Jang; Ahmadreza Moradi; Quan Dong Nguyen
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Clinical value, normative retinal sensitivity values, and intrasession repeatability using a combined spectral domain optical coherence tomography/scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimeter.

Authors:  A Anastasakis; J J McAnany; G A Fishman; W H Seiple
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 3.775

8.  Modeling the relative influence of fixation and sampling errors on retest variability in perimetry.

Authors:  T Maddess
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Comparison between Humphrey Field Analyzer and Micro Perimeter 1 in normal and glaucoma subjects.

Authors:  Vineet Ratra; Dhanashree Ratra; Muneeswar Gupta; K Vaitheeswaran
Journal:  Oman J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-05

10.  Retinal Differential Light Sensitivity Variation Across the Macula in Healthy Subjects: Importance of Cone Separation and Loci Eccentricity.

Authors:  Danuta M Sampson; Danial Roshandel; Avenell L Chew; Yufei Wang; Paul G Stevenson; Matthew N Cooper; Elaine Ong; Lawrence Wong; Jonathan La; David Alonso-Caneiro; Enid Chelva; Jane C Khan; David D Sampson; Fred K Chen
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.