Purpose We compared detection rates of glaucomatous visual field defects (VFDs) between a conventional rectangular stimulus grid and locally condensed test point arrangements in morphologically suspicious regions. Methods Humphrey Field Analyzer model 630 (HFA I, program 30-2 with a rectangular 6° × 6° grid) was used as the conventional perimetric method. Individual local test-point condensation was realized by fundus-oriented perimetry (FOP) on the Tuebingen Computer Campimeter (TCC). Results Of a total of 66 glaucoma patients, or suspected sufferers, 23 showed normal findings and 27 showed pathological findings with both methods. In 15 cases we found normal visual fields in HFA 30-2, whereas FOP revealed early glaucomatous functional damage. Only one case showed pathological HFA results, while FOP was normal. Detection rates of VFDs significantly differed between the two methods (p < 0.001; sign test). Conclusions FOP, using individually condensed test grids, significantly increases detection rates of glaucomatous VFDs in morphologically suspicuous areas compared with a conventional HFA 30-2 technique using equidistant rectangular (6° × 6°) test point arrangements.

To compare detection rates of glaucomatous visual field defects (VFDs) between the conventional 6°ϫ 6°stimulus grid and locally condensed target arrangements in morphologically suspicious regions. Methods: A total of 66 eyes of 66 patients with glaucoma or patients suspected of having glaucoma (34 females and 32 males; age range, 14-85 years) were enrolled in this study. Individual, local target condensation was realized by fundus-oriented perimetry (FOP) using a campimeter and compared with the results of conventional automated perimetry (CAP), obtained with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (30-2 grid). Results: Twenty-three of the 66 patients showed normal findings with both methods; 27 had concordantly pathological results. In 15 patients we obtained normal findings with CAP, whereas FOP revealed early glaucomatous VFDs. Only one patient showed VFDs with CAP, whereas FOP results were normal. Scotoma detection rates significantly differed between the 2 methods (PϽ.001, sign test). Test duration with FOP was more than doubled compared with CAP. When considering only FOP points coinciding with the 6°spacing of the 30-2 grid, there was no longer a significant difference between FOP and CAP (PϾ.25, sign test). This indicated that the target pattern, rather than the perimetric device, was most relevant for detecting glaucomatous VFDs. Follow-up throughout a series of 3 subsequent sessions at 6-month intervals revealed repeatable results in more than two thirds of all eyes for both FOP and CAP. Conclusions: Fundus-oriented perimetry that uses individually condensed test grids significantly increases the detection rate of glaucomatous VFDs in morphologically conspicuous areas compared with CAP using equidistant (6°ϫ6°) target arrangements. Repeatability is comparable between both methods.