Centre for Eye Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia; School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Centre for Eye Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia; School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Nov;219:317-331. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.06.024. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of the 24-2 test grid with that of the 24-2C test grid to measure visual field global indices, identify central visual field defects, and facilitate macular structure-function analysis with optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans in glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients.
Prospective, cross-sectional study.
One eye from each of 100 glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients (60 undergoing SITA-Faster [Zeiss Meditec] testing on 24-2 and 24-2C; 40 undergoing SITA-Standard [Zeiss Meditec] testing on 24-2 and SITA-Faster on 24-2C) were included in the study. Global visual field indices, test duration, and pattern deviation results were extracted. The deviation map from the Cirrus OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec) Ganglion Cell Analysis (GCA) was extracted, and structure-function relationships were compared after correction of the visual field test stimulus location that stimulated the corresponding retinal ganglion cell.
Global index results of the 24-2 grid were similar to those of the 24-2C grid, and both identified a comparable number of clusters of visual field defects. Centrally, the 24-2C grid identified more clusters of defects than the 24-2 grid, but this was not statistically significant. Although the 24-2C test locations resulted in more instances of structure-function concordance than the 24-2 locations, half the locations in the 24-2C grid fell close to or outside the GCA grid when corrected for ganglion cell displacement.
The 24-2C returned global visual field indices similar to the 24-2 grid but tended to identify more clusters of central functional defects. Central structure-function concordance was better achieved using the 24-2C grid, but half of the visual field test locations did not coincide with the commonly used macular thickness scan.
本研究旨在比较 24-2 测试格栅与 24-2C 测试格栅在青光眼疑似患者和患者中的测量视场全局指数、识别中央视场缺陷以及促进光学相干断层扫描 (OCT) 扫描下黄斑结构-功能分析的能力。
前瞻性、横断面研究。
纳入 100 名青光眼疑似患者和患者的每只眼(60 只眼在 24-2 和 24-2C 上进行 SITA-Faster [蔡司医疗]测试;40 只眼在 24-2 上进行 SITA-Standard [蔡司医疗]测试,在 24-2C 上进行 SITA-Faster 测试)。提取全局视场指数、测试持续时间和模式偏差结果。提取 Cirrus OCT(卡尔蔡司医疗)神经节细胞分析(GCA)的偏差图,并在校正刺激相应视网膜神经节细胞的视场测试刺激位置后,比较结构-功能关系。
24-2 格栅的全局指数结果与 24-2C 格栅相似,并且两者都识别出了类似数量的视场缺陷簇。在中央,24-2C 格栅比 24-2 格栅识别出更多的缺陷簇,但这没有统计学意义。虽然 24-2C 测试位置比 24-2 位置导致更多的结构-功能一致性实例,但当校正神经节细胞位移时,24-2C 格栅的一半位置接近或超出 GCA 格栅。
24-2C 网格返回与 24-2 网格相似的全局视场指数,但倾向于识别更多的中央功能缺陷簇。使用 24-2C 格栅可以更好地实现中央结构-功能一致性,但一半的视场测试位置与常用的黄斑厚度扫描不重合。