Behera Geeta, Waghmare Shradha Vijay, Ramasamy Amala
Department of Ophthalmology, Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, 605006, India.
Department of Ophthalmology, Indira Gandhi Government General Hospital and Post Graduate Institute (IGGGH&PGI), Puducherry, India.
Int Ophthalmol. 2023 Feb;43(2):557-565. doi: 10.1007/s10792-022-02457-5. Epub 2022 Aug 10.
To compare visual field test results of Glaufield Lite AP901 CTS 133 (Appasamy Associates, Mannadipet Commune, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry, India, hereafter Glaufield Lite) with Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA, hereafter HFA).
A pilot study at a tertiary eye centre involving 23 normal and 24 glaucoma patients who underwent two consecutive visual field tests on (i) HFA 24-2 SITA Fast and (ii) Glaufield Lite Quick Central program.
The mean testing time on HFA was significantly shorter than Glaufield Lite (normals: HFA: 2.75 ± 0.49 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.85 ± 0.86 min, p < 0.001; glaucoma patients: HFA: 3.45 ± 1.08 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.95 ± 0.54 min, p < 0.001). Reliability criteria were similar, but false-positivity was lower with Glaufield Lite. Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement for mean deviation (MD), [~ 2.69 units less for HFA], and acceptable agreement for pattern standard deviation (PSD) [~ 0.426 units more for HFA] between the two devices.
Both perimetric techniques showed reliable test results though test duration was longer with Glaufield Lite perimetry. The MD showed poor agreement, likely due to different scales and principles used for perimetry. The PSD showed acceptable agreement, making it valid for use in glaucoma, though a direct comparison of fields from the two devices is not possible. We recommend using the same perimetry device for follow-up evaluation.
比较Glaufield Lite AP901 CTS 133（印度本地治里市蒂鲁布瓦奈曼纳迪佩特公社阿帕萨米协会，以下简称Glaufield Lite）与汉弗莱视野分析仪（HFA，美国加利福尼亚州都柏林卡尔蔡司医疗技术公司，以下简称HFA）的视野测试结果。
在一家三级眼科中心进行的一项初步研究，纳入了23名正常人和24名青光眼患者，他们分别接受了以下两项连续的视野测试：（i）HFA 24-2 SITA Fast和（ii）Glaufield Lite快速中心程序。
HFA的平均测试时间明显短于Glaufield Lite（正常人：HFA：2.75±0.49分钟，Glaufield Lite：6.85±0.86分钟，p<0.001；青光眼患者：HFA：3.45±1.08分钟，Glaufield Lite：6.95±0.54分钟，p<0.001）。可靠性标准相似，但Glaufield Lite的假阳性率较低。布兰德-奥特曼分析显示，两种设备之间平均偏差（MD）的一致性较差，[HFA约少2.69个单位]，而模式标准偏差（PSD）的一致性可接受，[HFA约多0.426个单位]。
两种视野检查技术均显示出可靠的测试结果，尽管Glaufield Lite视野检查的测试时间较长。MD显示出较差的一致性，可能是由于视野检查所使用的尺度和原理不同。PSD显示出可接受的一致性，使其可用于青光眼的诊断，尽管无法对两种设备的视野进行直接比较。我们建议在随访评估中使用相同的视野检查设备。
