Agarwal H C, Gulati V, Sihota R
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110 029, India.
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2000 Dec;48(4):301-6.
To compare the detection and assessment of progression of visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma with manual suprathreshold perimetry on Goldmann perimeter and automated static threshold perimetry on Humphery visual field (HVF) analyzer.
105 eyes of 54 patients of primary open-angle glaucoma were followed up with 3-monthly perimetry on Goldmann perimeter and HVF analyzer, for a period of 9 months.
HVF analyzer picked up visual field defects in 48 (46%) eyes whereas Goldmann perimeter picked up visual field defects in 26 (25%) eyes. HVF analyzer demonstrated progression in 14 eyes whereas Goldmann perimeter detected progression in 7 eyes during follow up of 9 months.
HVF analyzer is superior to Goldmann perimeter to document and to demonstrate progression of visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma.
比较使用戈德曼视野计进行手动超阈值视野检查和使用汉弗莱视野分析仪（HVF）进行自动静态阈值视野检查对原发性开角型青光眼视野缺损的检测及进展评估情况。
对54例原发性开角型青光眼患者的105只眼睛进行随访，每3个月分别使用戈德曼视野计和HVF分析仪进行视野检查，为期9个月。
HVF分析仪检测出48只（46%）眼睛存在视野缺损，而戈德曼视野计检测出26只（25%）眼睛存在视野缺损。在9个月的随访期间，HVF分析仪显示14只眼睛病情进展，而戈德曼视野计检测到7只眼睛病情进展。
在记录和显示原发性开角型青光眼视野缺损的进展方面，HVF分析仪优于戈德曼视野计。
