Caprioli J, Sears M, Miller J M
Am J Ophthalmol. 1987 Apr 15;103(4):512-7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)74273-4.
We examined two groups of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma with distinctly different patterns of early visual field loss using two visual field indices: mean defect and loss variance. Patients were selected on the basis of visual field criteria only. Eight patients were selected for diffuse depression of the differential light sensitivity without localized scotomas (mean defect greater than 3.0 decibels, loss variance less than 10.0 decibels). Seven patients were selected for localized scotomas without diffuse depression of the differential light sensitivity (mean defect less than or equal to 3.0 decibels, loss variance greater than or equal to 20.0 decibels). Patients with diffuse depression manifested intraocular pressures that were higher (mean peak pressure +/- S.E.M., 27.6 +/- 1.2 mm Hg) than those with localized defects (22.4 +/- 1.4 mm Hg). The optic disk rim area of the localized loss group (mean +/- S.E.M., 1.02 +/- 0.15 mm2) was significantly smaller (P less than .05) than the disk rim area of the diffuse loss group (1.33 +/- 0.07 mm2). This difference was largely because of thinner temporal disk rims in the localized loss group. Different patterns of visual field loss may be caused by different mechanisms of glaucomatous optic nerve damage.
平均缺损和缺损方差，对两组原发性开角型青光眼患者进行了检查，这两组患者早期视野缺损模式明显不同。仅根据视野标准选择患者。八名患者因不同光敏感度的弥漫性降低且无局限性暗点而入选（平均缺损大于3.0分贝，缺损方差小于10.0分贝）。七名患者因有局限性暗点但无不同光敏感度的弥漫性降低而入选（平均缺损小于或等于3.0分贝，缺损方差大于或等于20.0分贝）。弥漫性降低的患者表现出的眼压（平均峰值眼压±标准误，27.6±1.2毫米汞柱）高于有局限性缺损的患者（22.4±1.4毫米汞柱）。局限性缺损组的视盘边缘面积（平均±标准误，1.02±0.15平方毫米）明显小于弥漫性缺损组的视盘边缘面积（1.33±0.07平方毫米）（P小于0.05）。这种差异主要是由于局限性缺损组颞侧视盘边缘较薄。不同的视野缺损模式可能由青光眼性视神经损伤的不同机制引起。
