Detecting Visual Function Abnormalities Using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm and Matrix Perimetry in Eyes With Glaucomatous Appearance of the Optic Disc

Abstract

To compare the ability of 24-2 frequencydoubling perimetry (FDP-Matrix) with standard automated perimetry with the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SAP-SITA) in detection of visual function abnormalities in patients with glaucomatous-appearing optic discs (GAOD). Methods: This observational case-control study included 80 patients with GAOD and 54 control subjects diagnosed by masked assessment of optic disc stereoscopic photographs. Abnormal visual function at SAP-SITA and FDP-Matrix testing required consistent abnormalities in 2 visual field examinations, determined using the glaucoma hemifield test outside 99% normal limits, pattern standard deviation outside 95% normal limits, or 3 contiguous points in the pattern deviation probability plot outside 95% normal limits (at least 1 PϽ1%) within the same hemifield. Results: The FDP-Matrix and SAP-SITA detected abnormal visual function in 51% and 44%, respectively, of GAOD eyes (P=.26), and both perimetry techniques identified 11% of healthy eyes as abnormal. Agreement between FDP-Matrix and SAP-SITA was moderate (=0.49), as only 35% of GAOD eyes and 2% of healthy eyes had both visual field test results flagged as abnormal. Conclusions: The FDP-Matrix detected abnormal visual function in more eyes with GAOD than did SAP-SITA, although this difference was not significant. Each visual field test tended to identify different subsets of eyes with GAOD as abnormal. Combination of these perimetry techniques may improve the detection of visual function abnormalities in patients with glaucoma.

Glokom ve Oküler Hipertansiyon Hastalarında Humphrey Matriks Perimetrisi ve Standart Otomatik Perimetrinin SITA Stratejisi ile Elde Edilen Görme Alanı Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması

“…21 The location of defects within 12 hemifield clusters found with FDT agreed moderately well with those detected with SAP (kappa=0.48). Sakata et al 22 used the same criteria as in our study for definition of abnormal visual field and reported a moderate agreement between the two perimetric methods similar to our finding (κ=0.49). The moderate agreement between these two tests might be again explained by the different psychophysical properties and algorithms used in these tests.…”

Stimulus Parameters for Multifocal Pupillographic Objective Perimetry

“…Thus the test duration, here about 2.5 min/eye including time for rests between segments, is quite short; especially for patients for whom the typical SITA test duration is 6 min/eye or more. 15,33,34 Our more recent studies have indicated that mfPOP employing between 40 and 60 stimulus regions/eye may be practical. 24 The use of dichoptic stimuli means that efferent and afferent defects can often be differentiated on a region-byregion basis.…”

Selective perimetry in glaucoma diagnosis

“…Visual function abnormality was determined by comparing the visual field results against the commercial available normative database of each test, and the criteria used was based on glaucoma hemifield test result outside normal limits, pattern standard deviation less than 5% and/or the presence of a cluster of three or more abnormal points (P < 5% with at least one point P < 1%) on the pattern deviation probability plot. This study also required confirmation of visual function abnormality in two visual field exams [44 ]. It was observed that FDP-Matrix detected abnormal visual function in more glaucomatous appearing optic disc eyes than SAP-SITA (although this difference was not significant).…”

“…Sakata et al [44 ] evaluated the performance of 24-2 FDP-Matrix and SITA-SAP in diagnosing patients with glaucomatous appearing optic disc. Visual function abnormality was determined by comparing the visual field results against the commercial available normative database of each test, and the criteria used was based on glaucoma hemifield test result outside normal limits, pattern standard deviation less than 5% and/or the presence of a cluster of three or more abnormal points (P < 5% with at least one point P < 1%) on the pattern deviation probability plot.…”

“…Furthermore, visual field defects in each technique did not always overlap and there was no significant difference in the number of abnormal points on the probability plot between the two techniques, suggesting that FDP-Matrix may not detect more extensive damage than SAP-SITA in this population. Additionally, each visual field test tended to identify different subsets of glaucomatous appearing optic disc patients as abnormal and a combination of these perimetry techniques improved the detection of visual function abnormalities with a slight reduction in specificity [44 ].…”