Comparison of Octopus Semi-Automated Kinetic Perimetry and Humphrey Peripheral Static Perimetry in Neuro-Ophthalmic Cases

Abstract

Aim. To compare semikinetic perimetry (SKP) on Octopus 900 perimetry to a peripheral static programme with Humphrey automated perimetry. Methods. Prospective cross-section study comparing Humphrey full field (FF) 120 two zone programme to a screening protocol for SKP on Octopus perimetry. Results were independently graded for presence/absence of field defect plus type and location of defect. Results. 64 patients (113 eyes) underwent dual perimetry assessment. Mean duration of assessment for SKP was 4.54 minutes ±0.18 and 6.17 ± 0.12 for FF120 (P = 0.0001). 80% of results were correctly matched for normal or abnormal visual fields using the I4e target versus FF120, and 73.5% were correctly matched using the I2e target versus FF120. When comparing Octopus results with combined I4e and I2e isopters to the FF120 result, a match for normal or abnormal fields was recorded in 87%. Conclusions. Humphrey perimetry test duration was generally longer than Octopus SKP. In the absence of kinetic perimetry, peripheral static suprathreshold programme options such as FF120 may be useful for detection of visual field defects. However, statokinetic dissociation may occur. Octopus SKP utilising both I4e and I2e targets provides detailed information of both the defect depth and size and may provide a more representative view of the actual visual field defect.

Detection of Visual Field Loss in Pituitary Disease: Peripheral Kinetic Versus Central Static

“…12,[20][21][22][23][24] Similar comparisons for neuro-ophthalmic cases have been reported with equal reliability in 77% of eyes. 25 In our study with the 30-2 programme assessment, 85% of results showed visual field loss and 15% were normal 18 A match for normal or abnormal visual field results was reported for 87% of the cases. The authors concluded that although the FF120 was useful for detection of visual field defects, Octopus kinetic perimetry was preferable, as it provided added information of the defect depth and size plus a more representative view of the visual field defect.…”

“…The authors concluded that although the FF120 was useful for detection of visual field defects, Octopus kinetic perimetry was preferable, as it provided added information of the defect depth and size plus a more representative view of the visual field defect. 18 Visual field results are displayed quite differently between kinetic and threshold programmes, and given the potential for stato-kinetic dissociation (where static results appear worse than kinetic results 26 ), we considered whether either method displayed the visual field result more clearly than the other. This was determined purely by a qualitative evaluation of each visual field result from either perimeter as described previously.…”

“…A minimum of 12 vectors were assessed for the peripheral visual field and 8 for the central visual field inclusive of vectors on and offset from the vertical and horizontal meridia moving centripetally, similar to previously reported testing strategies. 17,18 Where a visual field defect was found, this was further evaluated by examiner intervention using additional vectors, with direction of target movement perpendicular to the boundary of the field defect. Following assessment, the response points along each vector were joined to form the isoptre for I4e and I2e targets, respectively.…”

“…17,18 Visual field results were also graded according to the degree of visual field loss, if any, and ranging from 0 (normal visual field) to 5 (blinding visual field loss). 19 The study protocol consisted of the 30-2 strategy visual field assessment and semi-automated kinetic visual field assessment with Humphrey perimetry and Octopus perimetry on the same day.…”

“…15,16 Static automated perimetry has been shown to be adequate in neuro-ophthalmology practice, whereas kinetic perimetry is useful for patients with severe visual and neurological deficits and patients with peripheral visual field defects. 17,18 In the context of early detection of visual involvement in pituitary tumours, it is important to be able to detect subtle visual field defects, particularly those that arise in the peripheral visual field, which is typically the area of visual field first compromised by pituitary compression. Given the advances in perimetry over recent years, with the current availability of faster thresholding programmes and semi-automated kinetic programmes, the purpose of this study is to compare these methods for diagnostic accuracy in detecting visual field defects due to pituitary disease.…”