Karickhoff J R
Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Ann Ophthalmol. 1991 Dec;23(12):470-3.
Tangent-screen visual fields were compared with the fields determined by a newly acquired automated perimeter in 100 eyes of consecutive patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. The tangent screen found defects in 12 eyes, and the automated perimeter found defects in 34 eyes. Because the automated perimeter found new defects or defects much worse than were found by the tangent-screen examinations, three patients received timolol, and a laser iridotomy, two laser trabeculoplasties, and three filtering operations were done on other patients. The major benefit in switching from tangent screen to automated perimetry was increased confidence in the visual fields tested as an indicator for treating patients with glaucoma. A minor problem in using the automated perimeter was that the testing was slightly longer and more tiring. This problem was reduced by using a translucent occluder, rather than the universally used opaque one.
对100例连续的青光眼或疑似青光眼患者的眼睛进行了切线屏视野检查，并与新购置的自动视野计所测定的视野进行了比较。切线屏检查发现12只眼有视野缺损，自动视野计发现34只眼有视野缺损。由于自动视野计发现了新的缺损或比切线屏检查发现的缺损严重得多的缺损，3例患者接受了噻吗洛尔治疗，其他患者进行了激光虹膜切开术、两次激光小梁成形术和三次滤过手术。从切线屏视野检查转换为自动视野计检查的主要益处在于，作为青光眼患者治疗指标的所测视野结果的可信度提高了。使用自动视野计的一个小问题是检查时间稍长且更累人。使用半透明遮眼罩而非普遍使用的不透明遮眼罩可减少这个问题。
