Cargando…

Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry

PURPOSE: To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10–2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24–2 SITA-Standard test. METHODS: One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roberti, Gloria, Manni, Gianluca, Riva, Ivano, Holló, Gabor, Quaranta, Luciano, Agnifili, Luca, Figus, Michele, Giammaria, Sara, Rastelli, Davide, Oddone, Francesco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29077730
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186793
_version_ 1783274204629565440
author Roberti, Gloria
Manni, Gianluca
Riva, Ivano
Holló, Gabor
Quaranta, Luciano
Agnifili, Luca
Figus, Michele
Giammaria, Sara
Rastelli, Davide
Oddone, Francesco
author_facet Roberti, Gloria
Manni, Gianluca
Riva, Ivano
Holló, Gabor
Quaranta, Luciano
Agnifili, Luca
Figus, Michele
Giammaria, Sara
Rastelli, Davide
Oddone, Francesco
author_sort Roberti, Gloria
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10–2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24–2 SITA-Standard test. METHODS: One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in the central 10° on HFA 24–2 test was tested with both the HFA 10–2 test and the Octopus G1 program 15 minutes apart, in random order. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of CVFD detection rates. Secondary outcome measures comprised the agreement in detecting CVFD, and the comparison of test durations and the numbers of depressed test points outside the central 10-degree area between the HFA 24–2 test and the Octopus G1 program. RESULTS: The mean age of the population was 65.2±10.1 years, and the mean deviation with HFA 24–2 was -3.26±2.6 dB. The mean test duration was not significantly different between the tests (p = 0.13). A CVFD was present in 33 (80.4%) HFA 10–2 test and in 23 (56.0%) Octopus G1 tests (p = 0.002). The overall agreement between the HFA 10–2 and Octopus G1 examinations in classifying eyes as having or not having CVFD was moderate (Cohen’s kappa 0.47). The Octopus G1 program showed 69.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity to detect CVFD in eyes where the HFA 10–2 test revealed a CVFD. The number of depressed test points (p<5%) outside the central 10° area detected with the Octopus G1 program (19.68±10.6) was significantly higher than that detected with the HFA 24–2 program (11.95±5.5, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both HFA 10–2 and Octopus G1programs showed CVFD not present at HFA 24–2 test although the agreement was moderate. The use of a single Octopus G1 examination may represent a practical compromise for the assessment of both central and peripheral visual field up to 30° eccentricity without any additional testing and increasing the total investigation time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5659771
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56597712017-11-09 Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry Roberti, Gloria Manni, Gianluca Riva, Ivano Holló, Gabor Quaranta, Luciano Agnifili, Luca Figus, Michele Giammaria, Sara Rastelli, Davide Oddone, Francesco PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: To compare the detection rate of central visual field defect (CVFD) between the 30-degree Octopus G1 program (Dynamic strategy) and the HFA 10–2 SITA-Standard test in early glaucoma eyes not showing any CVFD on the HFA 24–2 SITA-Standard test. METHODS: One eye of 41 early glaucoma patients without CVFD in the central 10° on HFA 24–2 test was tested with both the HFA 10–2 test and the Octopus G1 program 15 minutes apart, in random order. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of CVFD detection rates. Secondary outcome measures comprised the agreement in detecting CVFD, and the comparison of test durations and the numbers of depressed test points outside the central 10-degree area between the HFA 24–2 test and the Octopus G1 program. RESULTS: The mean age of the population was 65.2±10.1 years, and the mean deviation with HFA 24–2 was -3.26±2.6 dB. The mean test duration was not significantly different between the tests (p = 0.13). A CVFD was present in 33 (80.4%) HFA 10–2 test and in 23 (56.0%) Octopus G1 tests (p = 0.002). The overall agreement between the HFA 10–2 and Octopus G1 examinations in classifying eyes as having or not having CVFD was moderate (Cohen’s kappa 0.47). The Octopus G1 program showed 69.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity to detect CVFD in eyes where the HFA 10–2 test revealed a CVFD. The number of depressed test points (p<5%) outside the central 10° area detected with the Octopus G1 program (19.68±10.6) was significantly higher than that detected with the HFA 24–2 program (11.95±5.5, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both HFA 10–2 and Octopus G1programs showed CVFD not present at HFA 24–2 test although the agreement was moderate. The use of a single Octopus G1 examination may represent a practical compromise for the assessment of both central and peripheral visual field up to 30° eccentricity without any additional testing and increasing the total investigation time. Public Library of Science 2017-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5659771/ /pubmed/29077730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186793 Text en © 2017 Roberti et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Roberti, Gloria
Manni, Gianluca
Riva, Ivano
Holló, Gabor
Quaranta, Luciano
Agnifili, Luca
Figus, Michele
Giammaria, Sara
Rastelli, Davide
Oddone, Francesco
Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry
title Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry
title_full Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry
title_fullStr Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry
title_full_unstemmed Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry
title_short Detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: Comparison of Humphrey and Octopus perimetry
title_sort detection of central visual field defects in early glaucomatous eyes: comparison of humphrey and octopus perimetry
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29077730
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186793
work_keys_str_mv AT robertigloria detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT mannigianluca detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT rivaivano detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT hollogabor detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT quarantaluciano detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT agnifililuca detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT figusmichele detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT giammariasara detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT rastellidavide detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry
AT oddonefrancesco detectionofcentralvisualfielddefectsinearlyglaucomatouseyescomparisonofhumphreyandoctopusperimetry