Sikorski Bartosz L, Laudencka Adriana
Department of Ophthalmology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 9 M. Sklodowskiej-Curie St., Bydgoszcz 85-309, Poland.
Oculomedica Eye Research & Development Center, 9 Broniewskiego St., Bydgoszcz 85-090, Poland.
J Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec 23;2020:7139649. doi: 10.1155/2020/7139649. eCollection 2020.
To compare the results obtained with two threshold strategies of visual field assessment: Humphrey SITA Fast (SFA) (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and PTS 2000 Advanced Threshold (ADV) (Optopol Technology) in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma.
The study sample comprised of 53 healthy volunteers and 69 patients with glaucoma. One eye of each patient was examined with the SFA and ADV strategies. The quantitative comparisons of test duration and global indices were made using correlation coefficients. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms were evaluated based on the GHT results and the adjusted Anderson-Patella (A&P) criteria.
The ADV test duration was shorter both in healthy subjects (by 5%) and patients with glaucoma (by 18%). The mean differences in MS values between the SFA and the ADV strategies were 1.06 ± 1.13 dB (MS-MS) in healthy subjects and 1.00 ± 1.92 dB (MS-MS) in patients with glaucoma. The MD index of ADV tests was lower than the SFA in the healthy (-0.74 ± 1.09 dB) (MS-MS) and glaucoma group (-0.85 ± 2.19 dB) (MS-MS). The mean differences in PSD values determined using both methods were -0.86 ± 0.67 dB (PSD-PSD) and -0.53 ± 1.48 dB (PSD-PSD) in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma, respectively. Analysis of receiver operating characteristic curves built from MD and PSD indices show bigger area under curve in SFA than in ADV (0.983 vs.0.968 and 0.986 vs. 0.938, respectively). The GHT-based sensitivity and specificity for the ADV strategy were 92.75% and 77.36%, respectively, as compared to 92.75% and 90.57%, respectively, for the SFA strategy.
Both SFA and ADV enable effective identification of glaucomatous defects within 5 minutes. The ADV strategy, however, is significantly faster. The correlation between the global indices of SFA and ADV is very high. Both strategies offer very high sensitivity when using both GHT and A&P criteria.
比较两种视野评估阈值策略的结果：健康受试者和青光眼患者使用的Humphrey SITA快速阈值检测法（SFA）（卡尔蔡司医疗技术公司）和PTS 2000高级阈值检测法（ADV）（Optopol Technology公司）。
研究样本包括53名健康志愿者和69名青光眼患者。对每位患者的一只眼睛采用SFA和ADV策略进行检查。使用相关系数对检测时间和总体指标进行定量比较。基于GHT结果和调整后的安德森-帕特拉（A&P）标准评估算法的敏感性和特异性。
ADV检测时间在健康受试者中缩短了5%，在青光眼患者中缩短了18%。SFA和ADV策略之间的MS值平均差异在健康受试者中为1.06±1.13dB（MS-MS），在青光眼患者中为1.00±1.92dB（MS-MS）。ADV检测的MD指数在健康组（-0.74±1.09dB）（MS-MS）和青光眼组（-0.85±2.19dB）（MS-MS）中均低于SFA。使用两种方法测定的PSD值平均差异在健康受试者和青光眼患者中分别为-0.86±0.67dB（PSD-PSD）和-0.53±1.48dB（PSD-PSD）。根据MD和PSD指数绘制曲线下面积（AUC），结果显示SFA的AUC大于ADV（分别为0.983对0.968和0.986对0.938）。基于GHT的ADV策略敏感性和特异性分别为92.75%和77.36%，而SFA策略分别为92.75%和90.57%。
SFA和ADV均能在5分钟内有效识别青光眼性缺损。然而，ADV策略明显更快。SFA和ADV的总体指标之间相关性非常高。使用GHT和A&P标准时，两种策略均具有很高的敏感性。
