Cargando…

Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare retinal sensitivities in normal individuals obtained using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard (SITA-S) on the Humphrey field analyzer with those obtained using the Dynamic strategy on the Octopus. METHODS: Prior to visual field e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suzumura, Hirotaka, Yoshikawa, Keiji, Mizoue, Shiro, Hyodo, Ryoko, Kimura, Tairo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23185115
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S36595
_version_ 1782250227992887296
author Suzumura, Hirotaka
Yoshikawa, Keiji
Mizoue, Shiro
Hyodo, Ryoko
Kimura, Tairo
author_facet Suzumura, Hirotaka
Yoshikawa, Keiji
Mizoue, Shiro
Hyodo, Ryoko
Kimura, Tairo
author_sort Suzumura, Hirotaka
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare retinal sensitivities in normal individuals obtained using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard (SITA-S) on the Humphrey field analyzer with those obtained using the Dynamic strategy on the Octopus. METHODS: Prior to visual field examinations, the background luminance, stimulus size, and exposure time with the Octopus 101 were conformed to the Humphrey field analyzer II settings. Volunteers over 20 years of age without apparent ophthalmic abnormalities were examined with the SITA-S central 30-2 program followed by the Dynamic 32 program. Eye with corrected visual acuity ≥ 0.8, refraction ≥ −6.0 diopters, and fields with satisfactory levels of reliability in SITA-S and Dynamic were selected. RESULTS: Sixty-seven eyes from 67 normal individuals of mean age 51.3 ± 16.3 (range 22–76) years satisfied the selection criteria and were analyzed. Mean retinal sensitivity was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher with SITA-S (29.0 ± 2.4 dB) than with Dynamic (26.8 ± 2.1 dB). Changes in retinal sensitivity with increasing age were significantly (P = 0.0003) greater with Dynamic (−0.09 ± 0.04 dB/year; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.10 to −0.08 dB/year) than with SITA-S (−0.07 ± 0.04 dB/year, 95% CI −0.08 to −0.06 dB/year). When classifying the visual field into three areas (central, mid-peripheral, and peripheral), retinal sensitivities with SITA-S were significantly higher in all areas than with Dynamic (P < 0.0001 for all three areas). CONCLUSION: Differences in Dynamic and SITA-S strategies may contribute to the differences in retinal sensitivities observed in normal individuals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3501840
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35018402012-11-26 Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals Suzumura, Hirotaka Yoshikawa, Keiji Mizoue, Shiro Hyodo, Ryoko Kimura, Tairo Clin Ophthalmol Original Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare retinal sensitivities in normal individuals obtained using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard (SITA-S) on the Humphrey field analyzer with those obtained using the Dynamic strategy on the Octopus. METHODS: Prior to visual field examinations, the background luminance, stimulus size, and exposure time with the Octopus 101 were conformed to the Humphrey field analyzer II settings. Volunteers over 20 years of age without apparent ophthalmic abnormalities were examined with the SITA-S central 30-2 program followed by the Dynamic 32 program. Eye with corrected visual acuity ≥ 0.8, refraction ≥ −6.0 diopters, and fields with satisfactory levels of reliability in SITA-S and Dynamic were selected. RESULTS: Sixty-seven eyes from 67 normal individuals of mean age 51.3 ± 16.3 (range 22–76) years satisfied the selection criteria and were analyzed. Mean retinal sensitivity was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher with SITA-S (29.0 ± 2.4 dB) than with Dynamic (26.8 ± 2.1 dB). Changes in retinal sensitivity with increasing age were significantly (P = 0.0003) greater with Dynamic (−0.09 ± 0.04 dB/year; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.10 to −0.08 dB/year) than with SITA-S (−0.07 ± 0.04 dB/year, 95% CI −0.08 to −0.06 dB/year). When classifying the visual field into three areas (central, mid-peripheral, and peripheral), retinal sensitivities with SITA-S were significantly higher in all areas than with Dynamic (P < 0.0001 for all three areas). CONCLUSION: Differences in Dynamic and SITA-S strategies may contribute to the differences in retinal sensitivities observed in normal individuals. Dove Medical Press 2012 2012-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3501840/ /pubmed/23185115 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S36595 Text en © 2012 Suzumara et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd. This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Suzumura, Hirotaka
Yoshikawa, Keiji
Mizoue, Shiro
Hyodo, Ryoko
Kimura, Tairo
Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals
title Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals
title_full Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals
title_fullStr Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals
title_short Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals
title_sort assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23185115
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S36595
work_keys_str_mv AT suzumurahirotaka assessmentofretinalsensitivityusingatimesavingstrategyinnormalindividuals
AT yoshikawakeiji assessmentofretinalsensitivityusingatimesavingstrategyinnormalindividuals
AT mizoueshiro assessmentofretinalsensitivityusingatimesavingstrategyinnormalindividuals
AT hyodoryoko assessmentofretinalsensitivityusingatimesavingstrategyinnormalindividuals
AT kimuratairo assessmentofretinalsensitivityusingatimesavingstrategyinnormalindividuals