Diagnostic Performance of the PalmScan VF2000 Virtual Reality Visual Field Analyzer for Identification and Classification of Glaucoma

Shetty, Vijay; Sankhe, Prachi; Haldipurkar, Suhas S; Haldipurkar, Tanvi; Dhamankar, Rita; Kashelkar, Priyanka; Shah, Dhruven; Mhatre, Paresh; Setia, Maninder Singh

doi:10.18502/jovr.v17i1.10168

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have examined VR‐based perimeters. For example, Shetty et al 12 and Mees et al 13 showed that VR platforms may be useful when screening for glaucomatous visual field defects using the criteria of number of defective points identified. Other studies using different thresholding paradigms, such as that by Narang et al, 14 Razeghinejad et al 15 and Tsapakis et al 16 against the HFA and Stapelfeldt et al 17 against the Octopus, showed results that correlated well with standard automated perimetry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing a head‐mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients

Phu,

Wang,

Kalloniatis

2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare clinical visual field outputs in glaucoma and healthy patients returned by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and virtual reality (Virtual Field, VF) perimetry.MethodsOne eye of 54 glaucoma patients and 41 healthy subjects was prospectively tested (three times each in random order) using the HFA and VF perimeters (24‐2 test grids). We extracted and compared global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), pointwise sensitivity (and calculated ‘equivalent’ sensitivity after accounting for differences in background luminance) and pointwise defects. Bland–Altman (mean difference [Mdiff] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]) and intraclass correlation analyses were performed.ResultsThe VF test was shorter (by 76 s) and had lower fixation losses (by 0.08) and false‐positive rate (by 0.01) compared to the HFA (all p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlations were 0.86, 0.82 and 0.47 for MD, PSD and pointwise sensitivity between devices, respectively. Test–retest variability was higher for VF (Mdiff 0.3 dB, LoA −7.6 to 8.2 dB) compared to the HFA (Mdiff −0.3 dB, LoA −6.4 to 5.9 dB), indicating greater test–retest variability. When using each device's underlying normative database, the HFA detected, on average, 7 more defects (at the p < 0.05 level) out of the 52 test locations compared to this iteration of VF in the glaucoma cohort.ConclusionsVirtual Field returns global results that are correlated with the HFA, but pointwise sensitivities were more variable. Differences in test–retest variability and defect detection by its current normative database raise questions about the widespread adoption of VF in lieu of the HFA.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing a head‐mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients

Phu,

Wang,

Kalloniatis

2023

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

New possibilities of perimetry in screening and early diagnosis of glaucoma

Simakova,

Kulikov,

Serdiukova

et al. 2023

Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE. To study the diagnostic effectiveness of an improved software version of the well-known authors' modification of Frequency Doubling Technology (FDT) perimetry by comparing it with the previous software version and standard automated perimetry on the same contingent of healthy individuals and patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).METHODS. The study included 56 patients (105 eyes) (mean age 61±13.2 years) with POAG. Patients were divided into three groups depending on the stage of glaucoma: group 1 — early stage (39 eyes), group 2 — moderate (25 eyes), and group 3 — advanced (9 eyes) stage. The fourth (control) group included 32 eyes of 16 healthy people (average age 48.2±6.2 years). All study subjects underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP) on the Humphrey III visual field analyzer and non-standard perimetry in the form of our own modification of FDT perimetry and its improved software version — FDT VR version based on the new portable automatic perimeter "Stimulus" (OOO Total Vizhen, Russia). The optic nerve disc was evaluated on the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3.RESULTS. The software version of the authors' modification of FDT perimetry has been improved for liquid crystal monitors and adapted to the portable perimeter "Stimulus". When comparing diagnostic effectiveness, both variants of FDT perimetry are not inferior to SAP in sensitivity (87.6; 87.8 and 86.7%, respectively), and in terms of specificity (98.2; 98.1 and 84.4%, respectively) they are superior. A strong (r=0.99988) and reliable (p<0.05) correlation was found between the average values of light sensitivity for both variants of FDT perimetry.CONCLUSION. The introduction of FDT perimetry based on the new portable automatic perimeter "Stimulus" into widespread ophthalmological practice can contribute to improving the effectiveness of screening and early diagnosis of glaucoma.

show abstract

Modern possibilities of functional glaucoma screening (part 1)

Simakova,

Grigoryan,

Gorbacheva

2023

Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays methods of standard and non-standard computerized perimetry using stationary devices are widely used in functional screening of glaucoma. The information about new portable devices for perimetry has appeared in foreign literature in recent years, describing such advantages as economic availability, autonomy and mobility, which open up new possibilities for their use. New possibilities include cloud storage of data, the use of telemedicine technologies, artificial intelligence, examination of patients with disabilities, including those who are bedridden, as well as examination outside of medical institutions. All of this can allow glaucoma patients to receive ophthalmic care when in-person visits are unavailable, including social distancing needed during a pandemic or quarantine. This review of the literature describes the latest portable devices and applications for perimetry, attempts to classify them according to similar parameters, and assesses their advantages and disadvantages, as well as the prospects for their use in functional screening of glaucoma.

show abstract

Diagnostic Performance of the PalmScan VF2000 Virtual Reality Visual Field Analyzer for Identification and Classification of Glaucoma

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

Comparing a head‐mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients

Comparing a head‐mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients

New possibilities of perimetry in screening and early diagnosis of glaucoma

Modern possibilities of functional glaucoma screening (part 1)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About