Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021 Apr;69(4):918-922. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1266_20.
The aim of this study was to compare the performance of Octopus 900(OVF) kinetic module with Goldmann perimeter (GVF) and Humphrey 750i (HVF) perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders.
During this prospective observational cross-sectional study, 17 patients (26 eyes) with neuro-ophthalmic disorders underwent visual field examination on the three perimeters. Field defects on OVF were matched with HVF and GVF for the number of quadrants involved. An unmasked observer, and a masked observer (unaware of the clinical diagnosis) were made to separately diagnose the type of field defects on all three fields for the same patient. The pattern of field defect on OVF was compared with GVF and HVF field defects for both observers.
When OVF was compared with HVF and GVF, 88% eyes correctly matched for normal or abnormal visual fields, while quadrant-matching was 80% and 89% respectively. For the unmasked observer, the pattern of field defects on OVF was similar to HVF and GVF in 58% and 65% eyes respectively while for a masked observer, it was 54% and 62%. Central and paracentral scotomas showed unmatched fields when OVF was compared with HVF and GVF. When these patients were excluded, sensitivity of OVF increased to 95%.
Clinical correlation aids in better characterisation of a field defect. All 3 perimeters are concurrent in the pattern of field defects for non-central defects. However, the default protocol on OVF may not be enough to demarcate the central and para-central scotomas. Development of a customised protocol for the assessment of central and centrocecal field defects increases the accuracy of OVF.
本研究旨在比较 Octopus 900（OVF）动力学模块与 Goldmann 视野计（GVF）和 Humphrey 750i 视野计（HVF）在神经眼科疾病中的性能。
在这项前瞻性观察性横断面研究中，17 名（26 只眼）神经眼科疾病患者在三种视野计上进行了视野检查。OVF 的视野缺损与 HVF 和 GVF 匹配，以涉及的象限数为准。一名未掩蔽观察者和一名掩蔽观察者（不了解临床诊断）分别对同一位患者的所有三个视野中的视野缺损类型进行单独诊断。OVF 的视野缺损模式与 GVF 和 HVF 视野缺损进行了比较。
当 OVF 与 HVF 和 GVF 进行比较时，88%的眼睛在正常或异常视野方面正确匹配，而象限匹配分别为 80%和 89%。对于未掩蔽观察者，OVF 上的视野缺损模式与 HVF 和 GVF 相似，分别为 58%和 65%；对于掩蔽观察者，分别为 54%和 62%。中央和旁中央暗点与 HVF 和 GVF 比较时，OVF 视野无匹配。当排除这些患者时，OVF 的灵敏度提高到 95%。
临床相关性有助于更好地描述视野缺损的特征。所有 3 种视野计在非中央缺损的视野缺损模式上是一致的。然而，OVF 的默认方案可能不足以划定中央和旁中央暗点。为评估中央和中央旁视野缺损制定定制协议可提高 OVF 的准确性。
