You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 121 No. 4, April 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Clinical Sciences
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on ISI (3)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Glaucoma
 •Articles for Residents
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Increased Detection Rate of Glaucomatous Visual Field Damage With Locally Condensed Grids

A Comparison Between Fundus-Oriented Perimetry and Conventional Visual Field Examination

Ulrich Schiefer, MD; Mark Flad, PJ; Florian Stumpp, AiP; Alexander Malsam, AiP; Jens Paetzold, Dr rer nat; Reinhard Vonthein, Dr rer pol; P. Oliver Denk, MD; Pamela A. Sample, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:458-465.

Objective  To compare detection rates of glaucomatous visual field defects (VFDs) between the conventional 6° x stimulus grid and locally condensed target arrangements in morphologically suspicious regions.

Methods  A total of 66 eyes of 66 patients with glaucoma or patients suspected of having glaucoma (34 females and 32 males; age range, 14-85 years) were enrolled in this study. Individual, local target condensation was realized by fundus-oriented perimetry (FOP) using a campimeter and compared with the results of conventional automated perimetry (CAP), obtained with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (30-2 grid).

Results  Twenty-three of the 66 patients showed normal findings with both methods; 27 had concordantly pathological results. In 15 patients we obtained normal findings with CAP, whereas FOP revealed early glaucomatous VFDs. Only one patient showed VFDs with CAP, whereas FOP results were normal. Scotoma detection rates significantly differed between the 2 methods (P<.001, sign test). Test duration with FOP was more than doubled compared with CAP. When considering only FOP points coinciding with the 6° spacing of the 30-2 grid, there was no longer a significant difference between FOP and CAP (P>.25, sign test). This indicated that the target pattern, rather than the perimetric device, was most relevant for detecting glaucomatous VFDs. Follow-up throughout a series of 3 subsequent sessions at 6-month intervals revealed repeatable results in more than two thirds of all eyes for both FOP and CAP.

Conclusions  Fundus-oriented perimetry that uses individually condensed test grids significantly increases the detection rate of glaucomatous VFDs in morphologically conspicuous areas compared with CAP using equidistant (6° x 6°) target arrangements. Repeatability is comparable between both methods.


From the Departments of Pathophysiology of Vision and Neuro-Ophthalmology (Drs Schiefer and Paetzold and Mssrs Flad, Malsam, and Stumpp) and Ophthalmology, Anterior and Posterior Segment Eye Disease (Dr Denk), University Eye Hospital Tuebingen, and Department of Medical Biometry, University of Tuebingen (Dr Vonthein), Tuebingen, Germany; and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego (Dr Sample). The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2003 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.