Wirtschafter J D, Hard-Boberg A L, Coffman S M
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1984;82:329-57.
The value of the information obtained from Goldmann manual kinetic perimetry beyond 30 degrees was examined. Of 229 randomly selected patients in a University eye clinic who had visual fields performed for reasons other than glaucoma or ocular hypertension only 3 patients had abnormalities confined to the PVF of one or both eyes. In none of these three patients was the PVF necessary to detect disease (Graves' disease, 2 cases; retinoschisis, 1 case). The PVF was useful in determining the localization of the disorder and/or the therapeutic management in 14 patients of whom 4 of these had retinitis pigmentosa and 5 had other disorders where the PVF showed the extent of the retinal damage. For ergo-ophthalmologic purposes the PVF was useful in 45 patients; most frequently because the extent of abnormality provided a basis for warning the patient. In some cases the PVF was considered to be useful for economic disability determination or to exclude significant PVF defects in a patient with only one visually useful eye. In 77 patients the PVF of each eye was abnormal but not of ergo-ophthalmologic significance. If these data can be extrapolated to automated static perimetry, there will be a very great incremental cost for any clinically useful information obtained from the examination of the PVF. Because the cost-effectiveness of the examination must be compared with competing methods of obtaining information, it is proposed that the PVF be examined (1) whenever indicated for ergo-ophthalmologic reasons, or (2) when the CVF examination does not resolve a clinical problem for which there is a reasonably high probability that (a) additional clinically useful information will be obtained by examination of the PVF after the results of the CVF examination have been analyzed, or (b) the eye is likely to have a condition that can be detected or followed best by PVF examination.
对通过戈德曼动态视野计在30度以外获得的信息的价值进行了研究。在一所大学眼科诊所随机挑选的229名因青光眼或高眼压以外的原因进行视野检查的患者中，只有3名患者的一只或两只眼睛的周边视野存在异常。在这三名患者中，没有一人的周边视野对疾病（格雷夫斯病，2例；视网膜劈裂症，1例）的检测是必要的。周边视野在确定14名患者的疾病定位和/或治疗管理方面是有用的，其中4名患者患有色素性视网膜炎，5名患者患有其他疾病，周边视野显示了视网膜损伤的程度。出于眼 ergonomics 目的，周边视野在45名患者中是有用的；最常见的原因是异常程度为警告患者提供了依据。在某些情况下，周边视野被认为对经济残疾评定有用，或用于排除只有一只视力有用眼睛的患者存在明显的周边视野缺损。在77名患者中，每只眼睛的周边视野都异常，但不具有眼 ergonomics 意义。如果这些数据可以外推到自动静态视野检查，那么从周边视野检查获得的任何临床有用信息都将产生非常高的额外成本。由于必须将该检查的成本效益与获取信息的其他竞争方法进行比较，因此建议在以下情况下检查周边视野：（1）出于眼 ergonomics 原因有指征时；或（2）当中心视野检查未能解决一个临床问题，且在分析中心视野检查结果后，有相当高的可能性（a）通过检查周边视野将获得额外的临床有用信息，或（b）眼睛可能患有通过周边视野检查能最好检测或跟踪的疾病。
