*Mayo Clinic Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota; and †Department of Ophthalmology, University of Oklahoma, Dean McGee Eye Institute Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Sep-Oct;29(5):361-3. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e31829a7288.
To compare Goldmann manual perimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry for sensitivity in detecting visual field loss, efficiency, and patient preference.
This prospective study compared Goldmann manual perimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry testing techniques in 20 consecutive preoperative blepharoptosis patients with unilateral or bilateral blepharoptosis with a marginal reflex distance of ≤+2.5 mm, no dermatochalasis overhanging the eyelid margin, and no superior visual field defects due to glaucoma, neurologic disease, or other causes. Main outcome measures included efficiency, patient preference, and sensitivity in detecting visual field loss. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to the start of the study.
Goldmann perimetry had significantly shorter examination times (-Δ6.4 minutes, 95% confidence interval: 4.5-8.3, p < 0.001) and was preferred by most patients (70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 techniques in detecting superior visual field loss at 90° meridian.
Goldmann manual perimetry for assessing visual field loss in blepharoptosis patients is more efficient than Humphrey automated perimetry and is preferred by patients. Both techniques are sensitive in detecting ptosis-related visual field loss.
比较 Goldmann 手动视野计和 Humphrey 自动视野计在检测视野缺失方面的敏感性、效率和患者偏好。
前瞻性研究比较了 Goldmann 手动视野计和 Humphrey 自动视野计测试技术在 20 例单侧或双侧上睑下垂患者中的应用，这些患者的上睑缘边缘反射距离≤+2.5mm，无皮肤松弛症悬垂于睑缘，且无因青光眼、神经疾病或其他原因引起的上视野缺损。主要观察指标包括检测视野缺失的效率、患者偏好和敏感性。在研究开始前获得了机构审查委员会的批准。
Goldmann 视野计的检查时间明显缩短（-Δ6.4 分钟，95%置信区间：4.5-8.3，p<0.001），且大多数患者（70%）更喜欢这种方法。两种技术在检测 90°子午线的上视野缺失方面无统计学差异。
Goldmann 手动视野计评估上睑下垂患者的视野缺失比 Humphrey 自动视野计更有效，且更受患者欢迎。两种技术在检测与上睑下垂相关的视野缺失方面均具有敏感性。
