Hirasawa Kazunori, Takahashi Natsumi, Satou Tsukasa, Kasahara Masayuki, Matsumura Kazuhiro, Shoji Nobuyuki
a Department of Orthoptics and Visual Science , School of Allied Health Sciences, Kitasato University , Kanagawa , Japan.
b Department of Ophthalmology , Kitasato University Hospital , Kanagawa , Japan.
Curr Eye Res. 2017 Aug;42(8):1160-1168. doi: 10.1080/02713683.2017.1293114. Epub 2017 Apr 25.
This prospective observational study compared the performance of size modulation standard automated perimetry with the Octopus 600 10-2 test program, with stimulus size modulation during testing, based on stimulus intensity and conventional standard automated perimetry, with that of the Humphrey 10-2 test program in glaucoma patients.
Eighty-seven eyes of 87 glaucoma patients underwent size modulation standard automated perimetry with Dynamic strategy and conventional standard automated perimetry using the SITA standard strategy. The main outcome measures were global indices, point-wise threshold, visual defect size and depth, reliability indices, and test duration; these were compared between size modulation standard automated perimetry and conventional standard automated perimetry.
Global indices and point-wise threshold values between size modulation standard automated perimetry and conventional standard automated perimetry were moderately to strongly correlated (p < 0.01). However, the correlation coefficient of point-wise threshold value for the central zone was significantly lower than that for the peripheral zone (χ2 > 33.40, p < 0.01). Better mean defect and point-wise threshold values were obtained with size modulation standard automated perimetry than with conventional standard automated perimetry, but the visual-field defect size was smaller (p < 0.01) and depth shallower (p < 0.01) on size modulation-standard automated perimetry than on conventional standard automated perimetry. The reliability indices, particularly the false-negative response, of size modulation standard automated perimetry were worse than those of conventional standard automated perimetry (p < 0.01). The test duration was 6.5% shorter with size modulation standard automated perimetry than with conventional standard automated perimetry (p = 0.02).
Global indices and the point-wise threshold value of the two testing modalities correlated well. However, the potential of a large stimulus presented at an area with a decreased sensitivity with size modulation standard automated perimetry could underestimate the actual threshold in the 10-2 test protocol, as compared with conventional standard automated perimetry.
本前瞻性观察性研究比较了青光眼患者中,采用Octopus 600 10 - 2测试程序并在测试期间基于刺激强度进行刺激大小调制的大小调制标准自动视野检查,与采用汉弗莱10 - 2测试程序的传统标准自动视野检查的性能。
87例青光眼患者的87只眼接受了采用动态策略的大小调制标准自动视野检查,以及采用SITA标准策略的传统标准自动视野检查。主要观察指标为总体指标、逐点阈值、视野缺损大小和深度、可靠性指标以及测试时长;对大小调制标准自动视野检查和传统标准自动视野检查的这些指标进行了比较。
大小调制标准自动视野检查和传统标准自动视野检查之间的总体指标和逐点阈值呈中度至高度相关(p < 0.01)。然而,中央区域逐点阈值的相关系数显著低于周边区域(χ2 > 33.40,p < 0.01)。与传统标准自动视野检查相比,大小调制标准自动视野检查获得了更好的平均缺损和逐点阈值,但大小调制标准自动视野检查的视野缺损大小更小(p < 0.01),深度更浅(p < 0.01)。大小调制标准自动视野检查的可靠性指标,尤其是假阴性反应,比传统标准自动视野检查更差(p < 0.01)。大小调制标准自动视野检查的测试时长比传统标准自动视野检查短6.5%(p = 0.02)。
两种测试方式的总体指标和逐点阈值相关性良好。然而,与传统标准自动视野检查相比,在大小调制标准自动视野检查中,在敏感度降低区域呈现大刺激的可能性可能会低估10 - 2测试方案中的实际阈值。