Dataset Information

Comparison of Threshold Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP) and Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) in Glaucoma. Part II: Patterns of Visual Field Loss and Acceptability.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We compared patterns of visual field loss detected by standard automated perimetry (SAP) to saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) and examined patient perceptions of each test.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was done of 58 healthy subjects and 103 with glaucoma who were tested using SAP and two versions of SVOP (v1 and v2). Visual fields from both devices were categorized by masked graders as: 0, normal; 1, paracentral defect; 2, nasal step; 3, arcuate defect; 4, altitudinal; 5, biarcuate; and 6, end-stage field loss. SVOP and SAP classifications were cross-tabulated. Subjects completed a questionnaire on their opinions of each test.

Results

We analyzed 142 (v1) and 111 (v2) SVOP and SAP test pairs. SVOP v2 had a sensitivity of 97.7% and specificity of 77.9% for identifying normal versus abnormal visual fields. SAP and SVOP v2 classifications showed complete agreement in 54% of glaucoma patients, with a further 23% disagreeing by one category. On repeat testing, 86% of SVOP v2 classifications agreed with the previous test, compared to 91% of SAP classifications; 71% of subjects preferred SVOP compared to 20% who preferred SAP.

Conclusions

Eye-tracking perimetry can be used to obtain threshold visual field sensitivity values in patients with glaucoma and produce maps of visual field defects, with patterns exhibiting close agreement to SAP. Patients preferred eye-tracking perimetry compared to SAP.

Translational relevance

This first report of threshold eye tracking perimetry shows good agreement with conventional automated perimetry and provides a benchmark for future iterations.

SUBMITTER: McTrusty AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5588911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe Olleyes VisuALL-K is a pediatric videogame-based static threshold perimeter using a virtual reality headset. We determined normal threshold sensitivities for the 24-2 test locations using the virtual reality perimetry (VRP) and also tested patients on the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Patient satisfaction for the two instruments was compared.MethodsThis exploratory study tested 50 normal pediatric participants aged 8 to 17 years on the HFA and VRP. The main outcome measure was threshold sensitivity at the 24-2 test locations for the two instruments.ResultsThe mean participant age was 13.0 ± 2.6 years; 50% were female. The threshold values for VRP are reported as measured on the device and after conversion to an HFA-equivalent scale. Age-adjusted thresholds showed a mean sensitivity of 31.8 ± 1.1 dB (46.1 ± dB HFA equivalent) diminution from the maximum light intensity in the VRP and 31.0 ± 1.5 dB diminution from the maximum light intensity in the HFA; interparticipant variability in mean threshold sensitivity was 2.7 ± 0.4 dB for the VRP and 2.7 ± 0.6 dB for the HFA. The HFA demonstrated decreased threshold sensitivity with increasing eccentricity, whereas the VRP threshold did not seem to vary with eccentricity. Mild age effects on threshold sensitivity were seen in the VRP and the HFA (R2 = 0.11, P < 0.001 and R2 = 0.05, P < 0.05, respectively). The mean time to completion for VRP and HFA was 7.6 ± 1.5 and 5.3 ± 0.9 min/eye, respectively (P < 0.0001). Patient satisfaction scores favored VRP (P < 0.01) despite the longer test duration.ConclusionsThe Olleyes game-based VRP and HFA can be used to map out the peripheral vision in normal children. The VRP has a higher patient satisfaction when used in children than the HFA. The portability of the test allows it to be performed in a myriad of environments, lending a flexibility that can benefit this population.Translational relevanceThis virtual reality perimetry device provides an alternative to the Humphrey Field Analyzer for children.