Cargando…

Periphery kinetic perimetry: clinically feasible to complement central static perimetry

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence suggests that visual field defect in eyes with glaucoma significantly varies between individuals. The following study compared the central visual field defects with the peripheral visual field defects in patients with suspect glaucoma and primary open-angle glaucoma (PO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Xiaoxiao, Tang, Li, Chen, Xiaoming, Zeng, Liuzhi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8459489/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34551740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02056-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Existing evidence suggests that visual field defect in eyes with glaucoma significantly varies between individuals. The following study compared the central visual field defects with the peripheral visual field defects in patients with suspect glaucoma and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and investigated whether using the central visual field test alone could result in loss of clinically valuable information. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 167 eyes from 89 patients with suspect glaucoma or POAG were first examined with static automated perimetry (SAP), followed by a peripheral visual field test on Octopus 900 perimeter (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland). The peripheral visual field test was performed by “Auto Kinetic Perimetry” program, in which Goldmann III4e stimuli randomly moved along 16 vectors at a constant angular velocity of 5 deg/s. RESULTS: Glaucomatous peripheral visual field defects were seen in 18% of the eyes with a normal central visual field. In addition, 86% of glaucoma patients with moderate-to-severe central visual field defects had corresponding peripheral visual field defects in the form of localized or diffuse depression of the isopters. Furthermore, a moderate correlation was found between the central and peripheral visual fields. The median test duration was 71 s for the peripheral test and 803 s for the central test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the diversity of glaucomatous visual field defects, as well as the possibility of losing the clinically valuable information due to focusing on the central visual field test alone. The peripheral kinetic perimetry is clinically feasible to complement the central static perimetry for a comprehensive assessment of visual function in glaucoma patients.