Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2010 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects with humphrey full threshold, fastpac, sita standard and sita fast tests

Glokomatöz görme alanı defektlerinin humphrey full threshold, fastpac, sıta standart ve sıta fast testleri ile karşılaştırılması

Pages
102–105
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

No difference was found between groups in respect to defect size and depth (p>0.01).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To compare the size and depth of glaucomatous visual field defects, global indices and testing time in Humphrey perimeter using full threshold (FT), SITA standard (SS), SITA fast (SF) and fastpac (FP) algorithms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Thirty-one eyes of 31 patients with visual field defects due to primary open angle glaucoma were included in the study prospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:No difference was found between groups in respect to defect size and depth (p>0.01).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the size and depth of glaucomatous visual field defects, global indices and testing time in Humphrey perimeter using full threshold (FT), SITA standard (SS), SITA fast (SF) and fastpac (FP) algorithms. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one eyes of 31 patients with visual field defects due to primary open angle glaucoma were included in the study prospectively. All patients were examined with the four test strategies (FT, SS, SF, FP) using Humphrey perimeter. Results: Mean age was 67.9±7.9 years. Testing time was 14.8±3.1 min., 10.3±1.7 min., 8.4±1.1 min. and 5.6±1.0 min. in FT, FP, SS and SF algorithms, respectively. Difference in testing time was statistically significant between all groups (p<0.001). MD was 14.1±6.9 dB, -13.6±7.2 dB, -13.4±7.4 dB and -11.0±9.2 dB in FT, FP, SS and SF algorithms, respectively. MD was found better in SF when compared to FT (p<0.01). PSD was found 10.3±3.1 dB, 9.4±3.1 dB, 10.8±3.7 dB and 9.5±3.8 dB in FT, FP, SS and SF algorithms, respectively. Statistically significant difference was found between FT-FP, FPSS, SS-SF (p<0.01). Visual field defect size was 17.6±6.7, 16.6±7.2, 18.4±6.8 and 18.6±5.5 in FT, FP, SS and SF algorithms, respectively. Visual field defect depth was found 340.6±185.9 dB, 312.3±203.5 dB, 349.6±218.9 dB and 306.9±194.0 dB in FT, FP, SS and SF algorithms, respectively. No difference was found between groups in respect to defect size and depth (p>0.01).

Özet

Amaç: Glokomatöz görme alanı defektlerinin boyut ve derinliğinin, global indislerin ve test sürelerinin Humphrey full threshold, SITA standart, SITA fast ve fastpac algoritmalarında karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya primer açık açılı glokoma bağlı görme alanı defekti olan 31 olgunun 31 gözü prospektif olarak dahil edildi. Her olguya Humphrey perimetri ile dört test stratejisi (FT, SS, SF, FP) kullanılarak görme alanı muayenesi yapıldı. Bulgular: Ortalama yaş 67.9±7.9 yıldı. Test süreleri FT, FP, SS ve SF algoritmalarında sırasıyla 14.8±3.1 dk, 10.3±1.7 dk, 8.4±1.1 dk ve 5.6±1.0 dk bulundu. Test süreleri tüm gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklı idi (p 0.01). Sonuç: SITA yöntemleriyle test süreleri anlamlı olarak azalmıştır. Görme alanı defektleri değişik algoritmalarda genişlik ve derinlik açısından benzer bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARIKAN, G., ASLANKARA, H., GÜNENÇ, Ü. (2010). Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects with humphrey full threshold, fastpac, sita standard and sita fast tests. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 102–105. https://ajindex.com/articles/226536

References (12)

  1. Choplin NT, Edwards RP.: Visual field testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Second Edition. Slack Co. Thorofare. 1999, P:4 -134
  2. Haley MJ.: The field analyzer primer. Second edition. Humphrey, San Leandro, California. 1987, P:14-37
  3. Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ, et al.: Comparison of glaucomatous visual field defects using standard full threshold and Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithms. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120: 1136-1141
  4. Hudson C, Wild JM, O’Neill EC.: Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:268-280
  5. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Patella M.: Glaucoma follow-up when converting from long to short perimetric threshold tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:489-493
  6. Deli B, Ateş H, Üretmen Ö, et al.: Humphrey Swedish İnteractive Threshold Algorithm (SİTA) yöntemiyle Humphrey standart tam eşik değeri (Threshold) yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. MN Oftalmol. 2001;8:222-224
  7. Önal S, İzgi B, Altunbaş HH, et al.: Glokomlu olgulara uygulanan ‘Humphrey Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) eşik testi ile santral 30-2 standart eşik testinin karşılaştırılması. T Oft Gaz. 2003;33:122-126
  8. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O’Neill EC, et al.: The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:1998-2009
  9. Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Motyka BM, et al.: Converting to SI- TA-standard from full- threshold visual field testing in the followup phase of a clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46: 2755-2759
  10. Bengtsson B, Heijl A.: Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and full threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77:143-146
  11. Budenz DL, Rhee P, Feuer WJ, et al.: Sensitivity and specificity of the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm for glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002;109;1052-1058
  12. Aoki Y, Takahashi G, Kitahara K.: Comparison of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm and full threshold algorithm for glaucomatous visual field loss. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17:196-202.