Rohrschneider Klaus, Springer Christina, Bültmann Stefan, Völcker Hans E
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Germany.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Jan;139(1):125-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.08.060.
To compare microperimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO, Rodenstock, Germany) and the recently introduced Micro Perimeter 1 (Nidek Technologies, Italy).
Prospective comparative observational study.
Fundus perimetry with static threshold perimetry was performed using the SLO and the MP1 in 68 eyes of 40 consecutive patients with different retinal diseases for example, central serous chorioretinopathy, macular dystrophy, and age-related macular degeneration. With both instruments, an automated 4-2-1 staircase strategy with Goldmann III stimuli and a comparable number of stimuli were applied. The depth and size of the detected scotomata as well as the location and stability of fixation were compared between both instruments.
There was good concordance of results, with 75% (51 of 68 eyes) showing an equal defect. Whereas the MP1 showed larger defects (depth and size) in 23.5% (16/68) of eyes studied than the SLO, the defects appeared larger with the SLO in 1 eye. Concerning fixation analysis, similar results were found for fixation stability with stable fixation in 47.1% (MP1: 32/68) and 48.5% (SLO: 33/68) and likewise for the location of fixation with foveal fixation in 54.4% (37/68) with the MP1 and the SLO. Whereas the average number of stimuli was similar for both instruments (MP1 56.8 +/-16.1, SLO 62.9 +/- 17.0), examination time was prolonged with the MP1 (MP1: 11m 35s +/- 3m 47s, SLO: 10m 29s +/- 3m 23s). Throughout all examinations, fundus visualization with the SLO was superior to the MP1.
For automated threshold microperimetry the MP1 provides results comparable to our SLO perimetry. Both instruments enable detection of sensitivity loss of the central visual field and an analysis of fixation behavior during microperimetry. Nevertheless, the MP1, with its automated real-time image alignment, facilitates examination. Additionally, the enlarged field allows testing in an area of 44 x 36 degrees instead of the 33 x 21 degree-area of the SLO. However, in comparison to our SLO-software, the current software of the MP1 requires improvements before exact measurements of defined retinal diseases are possible.
比较使用扫描激光检眼镜（SLO，德国罗敦司得）和最近推出的微视野计1（MP1，意大利尼德克科技公司）进行的微视野检查。
前瞻性比较观察性研究。
对40例患有不同视网膜疾病（如中心性浆液性脉络膜视网膜病变、黄斑营养不良和年龄相关性黄斑变性）的连续患者的68只眼，使用SLO和MP1进行静态阈值眼底视野检查。两种仪器均采用自动4-2-1阶梯策略，使用戈德曼III级刺激，且刺激数量相当。比较两种仪器检测到的暗点的深度和大小以及注视点的位置和稳定性。
结果具有良好的一致性，75%（68只眼中的51只）显示出相同的缺损。与SLO相比，MP1在23.5%（16/68）的受检眼中显示出更大的缺损（深度和大小），而SLO在1只眼中显示出更大的缺损。关于注视分析，在注视稳定性方面发现了相似的结果，MP1和SLO的稳定注视率分别为47.1%（32/68）和48.5%（33/68）；同样，MP1和SLO的黄斑中心凹注视率分别为54.4%（37/68）。虽然两种仪器的平均刺激数量相似（MP1为56.8±16.1，SLO为62.9±17.0），但MP1的检查时间更长（MP1：11分35秒±3分47秒，SLO：10分29秒±3分23秒）。在所有检查中，SLO的眼底可视化效果优于MP1。
对于自动阈值微视野检查，MP1提供的结果与我们的SLO视野检查结果相当。两种仪器都能够检测中心视野的敏感度损失，并在微视野检查期间分析注视行为。然而，MP1具有自动实时图像对齐功能，便于检查。此外，其扩大的视野允许在44×36度的区域进行测试，而不是SLO的33×21度区域。但是，与我们的SLO软件相比，MP1的当前软件在能够对特定视网膜疾病进行精确测量之前还需要改进。
Zotero 插件