McTrusty Alice D, Cameron Lorraine A, Perperidis Antonios, Brash Harry M, Tatham Andrew J, Agarwal Pankaj K, Murray Ian C, Fleck Brian W, Minns Robert A
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017 Sep 6;6(5):4. doi: 10.1167/tvst.6.5.4. eCollection 2017 Sep.
We compared patterns of visual field loss detected by standard automated perimetry (SAP) to saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and examined patient perceptions of each test.
A cross-sectional study was done of 58 healthy subjects and 103 with glaucoma who were tested using SAP and two versions of SVOP (v1 and v2). Visual fields from both devices were categorized by masked graders as: 0, normal; 1, paracentral defect; 2, nasal step; 3, arcuate defect; 4, altitudinal; 5, biarcuate; and 6, end-stage field loss. SVOP and SAP classifications were cross-tabulated. Subjects completed a questionnaire on their opinions of each test.
We analyzed 142 (v1) and 111 (v2) SVOP and SAP test pairs. SVOP v2 had a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 77.9% for identifying normal versus abnormal visual fields. SAP and SVOP v2 classifications showed complete agreement in 54% of glaucoma patients, with a further 23% disagreeing by one category. On repeat testing, 86% of SVOP v2 classifications agreed with the previous test, compared to 91% of SAP classifications; 71% of subjects preferred SVOP compared to 20% who preferred SAP.
Eye-tracking perimetry can be used to obtain threshold visual field sensitivity values in patients with glaucoma and produce maps of visual field defects, with patterns exhibiting close agreement to SAP. Patients preferred eye-tracking perimetry compared to SAP.
This first report of threshold eye tracking perimetry shows good agreement with conventional automated perimetry and provides a benchmark for future iterations.
我们比较了标准自动视野计（SAP）检测到的视野缺损模式与扫视矢量视动视野计（SVOP）的模式，并调查了患者对每种测试的感受。
对58名健康受试者和103名青光眼患者进行了横断面研究，使用SAP和两个版本的SVOP（v1和v2）进行测试。两种设备的视野由盲态分级人员分类为：0，正常；1，旁中心缺损；2，鼻侧阶梯；3，弓形缺损；4，象限性缺损；5，双弓形缺损；6，终末期视野缺损。对SVOP和SAP分类进行交叉制表。受试者完成了一份关于他们对每种测试看法的问卷。
我们分析了142对（v1）和111对（v2）SVOP和SAP测试。SVOP v2识别正常与异常视野的灵敏度为97.7%，特异度为77.9%。在54%的青光眼患者中，SAP和SVOP v2分类完全一致，另有23%的患者分类相差一类。在重复测试中，86%的SVOP v2分类与前一次测试一致，而SAP分类为91%；71%的受试者更喜欢SVOP，而只有20%的受试者更喜欢SAP。
眼动视野计可用于获得青光眼患者的阈值视野敏感度值，并生成视野缺损图，其模式与SAP显示出密切一致性。与SAP相比患者更喜欢眼动视野计。
这篇关于阈值眼动视野计的首次报告显示与传统自动视野计有良好的一致性，并为未来的迭代提供了一个基准。
