未矫正屈光不正的频率加倍视野检查的人群规范。

Ramesh Sathyamangalam Ve, George Ronnie, Soni Premal M, Palaniappan Lakshmanan, Raju Prema, Paul Pradeep G, Ramsathish Sivarathinasami, Vijaya Lingam

Glaucoma Project, Vision Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, 18 College Road, Chennai 600006, India.

Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Jun;84(6):496-504. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31806db55e.

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of uncorrected refractive error on threshold estimation using frequency doubling perimetry (FDP) full-threshold N-30 with emmetropia among normal subjects.

METHODS

One thousand two hundred ninety-nine subjects were enrolled from the Chennai Glaucoma Study, a population-based glaucoma prevalence study. Subjects underwent a comprehensive eye examination including the FDP full-threshold N-30 test. Normal subjects (with spherical equivalent refractive errors within +/-7 D) with no other ocular pathology were stratified into six groups based on the degree of myopia and hyperopia and compared with age-matched emmetropic controls. A subset of 22 subjects with higher refractive errors was assessed for within-subject effect on FDP parameters. The following FDP parameters were compared: mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, central threshold (CT), mean sensitivity (MS), paracentral points (PA), and peripheral threshold.

RESULTS

The one-way analysis of variance between all refractive error groups and emmetropes showed no statistically significant difference for the mean deviation (p = 0.1002) and pattern standard deviation (p = 0.4789). FDP parameters did not show a statistically significant difference for between and within-group comparisons. The variability of FDP sensitivity (derived from the 95% confidence interval range) as a proportion of the threshold range of the instrument was 31, 41, 46, and 41% for CT, MS, PA, and peripheral sensitivity, respectively, without spectacle correction and 29, 34, 36, and 35% for CT, MS, PA, and peripheral sensitivity, respectively, with correction. The mean CT, PA, and peripheral sensitivity show a decreasing trend from central to periphery in all the refractive error groups and a similar trend was noted in the emmetropic controls.

CONCLUSION

Between-subject (uncorrected ammetropes and age-matched emmetropes) and within-subject comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in any of the FDP parameters or in the contrast sensitivity estimates between the central and peripheral test locations. This finding is likely due to the high within-subject variability of FDP.

目的

比较未矫正屈光不正对正常受试者使用频率加倍视野计（FDP）全阈值N - 30进行阈值估计的影响与正视眼的差异。

方法

从钦奈青光眼患病率研究（一项基于人群的青光眼患病率研究）中招募了1299名受试者。受试者接受了包括FDP全阈值N - 30测试在内的全面眼部检查。将无其他眼部病变的正常受试者（等效球镜屈光不正度数在±7 D以内）根据近视和远视程度分为六组，并与年龄匹配的正视对照组进行比较。对22名屈光不正度数较高的受试者进行了组内FDP参数效应评估。比较了以下FDP参数：平均偏差、模式标准差、中心阈值（CT）、平均敏感度（MS）、旁中心点数（PA）和周边阈值。

结果

所有屈光不正组与正视眼之间的单因素方差分析显示，平均偏差（p = 0.1002）和模式标准差（p = 0.4789）无统计学显著差异。FDP参数在组间和组内比较中均未显示出统计学显著差异。未矫正眼镜时，CT、MS、PA和周边敏感度的FDP敏感度变异性（由95%置信区间范围得出）分别占仪器阈值范围的31%、41%、46%和41%，矫正后CT、MS、PA和周边敏感度的变异性分别为29%、34%、36%和35%。所有屈光不正组中，平均CT、PA和周边敏感度从中心到周边均呈下降趋势，正视对照组也观察到类似趋势。