Sensibilidade do estímulo de tamanho I na perimetria computadorizada acromática para a detecção de defeitos glaucomatosos no campo visual: análise comparativa com as perimetrias de ondas curtas e acromática convencional (SITA)

Mattos, Tessa de Cerqueira Lemos; Kasahara, Niro; Paolera, Maurício Della; Cohen, Ralph; Mandia, Carmo; Almeida, Geraldo Vicente de

doi:10.1590/s0004-27492008000200003

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Takada et al and Mattos et al showed that SAP using stimulus size I is more sensitive than SWAP (using stimulus size V) in detecting early glaucoma damage 23,24. Bengtsson and Heijl found that conventional Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) fast SAP was not inferior to full-threshold SWAP and SITA SWAP with respect to diagnostic sensitivity 25…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of SWAP and SAP on the point of glaucoma conversion

Havvas¹,

Papaconstantinou²,

Moschos³

et al. 2013

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the two perimetric modalities, SWAP (short wavelength automated perimetry) and SAP (standard automated perimetry), on the point of conversion to glaucoma.MethodsIn this prospective, longitudinal, follow-up study, 282 patients with ocular hypertension were recruited consecutively and tested with both SAP and SWAP annually for 5 years or until the onset of conversion to glaucoma. SAP and SWAP perimetry was performed with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II using the 24-2 full-threshold test. Abnormality for both SAP and SWAP fields was determined on the pattern deviation plot and defined as either a) one point below the 0.5% probability level or b) a cluster of 2 or more points below 1% or c) a cluster of 3 or more points below 2% or d) a cluster of 4 or more points below 5%. Abnormal tests had to be confirmed on a subsequent test within one year to be classified as conversion.ResultsOf the 282 patients initially recruited, 32 were excluded. Of the 250 remaining patients, a total of 38 converted during the follow-up period; 36.8% of conversions were detected earlier with SWAP, 29% simultaneously, and 34.2% were not detected with SWAP during the follow-up period; 2.4% of patients showed SWAP visual field loss that did not result in conversion during the follow-up period.ConclusionThe results in our study are inconclusive. There were patients with earlier, simultaneous, or no SWAP conversion, with SAP conversion as the golden standard criterion. One should consider both SAP and SWAP with confirmation when visual field loss is evident to maximize early detection of glaucoma, because it appears that each method identifies early glaucoma in a subset of patients and these subsets overlap only partially.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%