SavedAdd your journal

Journals / MN Oftalmoloji / 2013 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of rarebit perimetry with white on white and short - wavelength automated perimetry in primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Primer açık açılı glokom ve oküler hipertansiyonda rarebit görme alanının beyaz - beyaz ve kısa dalga boyu otomatik perimetri ile karşılaştırılması

SİREL GÜR GÜNGÖR
Burcu KAHRAMAN AYNACI
Ahmet AKMAN
Pages
98–101
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)

The reason for this finding may be the different working principles of Rarebit pe- rimetry.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To determine the compatibility between Rarebit perimetry and automated perimetry in primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT) patients, to compare the diagnostic performance of Rarebit perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in OHT patients for detecting early glaucomatous damage.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: Only the right eyes of the 22 POAG patients, 21 OHT patients and 10 normal patients were included to the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The reason for this finding may be the different working principles of Rarebit pe- rimetry.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To determine the compatibility between Rarebit perimetry and automated perimetry in primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT) patients, to compare the diagnostic performance of Rarebit perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) in OHT patients for detecting early glaucomatous damage. Material and Method: Only the right eyes of the 22 POAG patients, 21 OHT patients and 10 normal patients were included to the study. All patients underwent ophthalmologic exami- nation, standard automated white on white perimetry (Humphrey perimetry) (SAP) Swedish in- teractive testing algorithm (SITA) standard programme, SWAP SITA and Rarebit perimetry for two times. Results: There was no significant correlation between Rarebit perimetry and SAP or SWAP in POAG, OHT and control groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Rarebit perimetry and standard automated perimetry were not found to be compatible. The reason for this finding may be the different working principles of Rarebit pe- rimetry.

Özet

Amaç: Rarebit perimetrisinin primer açık açılı glokom (PAAG) ve oküler hipertansiyon (OHT) hastalarında otomatik perimetri ile uyumunun saptanması ayrıca OHT hastalarında er- ken glokomatöz defekt değerlendirilmesinde, Rarebit perimetrisinin kısa dalga boyu otomatik perimetrisine (SWAP) üstünlüğünün olup olmadığının belirlenmesi. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 22 PAAG, 21 OHT ve 10 normal olgunun sadece sağ gözü alındı. Hastalara oftalmolojik muayene, standart otomatize beyaz-beyaz perimetri (Humphrey perimetri) (SOP) Swedish interactive testing algorithm (SITA) standart programı, SWAP SITA standart programı ve Rarebit perimetrisi iki kez uygulandı. Bulgular: Primer açık açılı glokom, OHT ve kontrol grubunda, Rarebit görme alanı para- metreleri ile SWAP ve SOP parametreleri arasında anlamlı korelasyon tespit edilmedi (p>0,05). Sonuç: Rarebit görme alanı ile klasik otomatize görme alanları arasında uyum tespit edile- memiştir. Bunun nedeni Rarebit görme alanının tamamen farklı prensiplere dayanması olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNGÖR, S. G., AYNACI, B. K., AKMAN, A. (2013). Comparison of rarebit perimetry with white on white and short - wavelength automated perimetry in primary open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. MN Oftalmoloji, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2, 98–101. https://ajindex.com/articles/295661

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Heijl A. Humphrey field analyzer. In: Drance S.M, Anderson D.R, eds. Automated perimetry in glaucoma, a practical guide. Orlando: Grune and Stratton 1985:129-40
  2. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and Fullt- hreshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77: 143-6
  3. Bayer AU, Maag KP, Erb C. Detection of optic nueropathy in glaucomatous eyes with normal standart visual fields using a test battery of short-wavelength automated perimetry and pat- tern electroretinography. Ophthalmology 2002;109:1350-61
  4. Frisen L. New, sensitive window on abnormal spatial vision: Rarebit probing. Vis Res 2002; 42:1931-9
  5. European Glaucoma Society. 2003 Terminology and guide- lines for glaucoma. Savona, Italy: Dogma 2003;2:5-8
  6. Frisen L. Spatial vision in visually asymptomatic subjects at high risk for multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:1145-1147
  7. Corallo G, Lestre M, Scotto R, Calabria G, Traverso CE. Ra- rebit perimetry and frequency doubling technology in patients with ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol 2008;18:205-211
  8. Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Parisi L, Brusini P. Rarebit perimetry in normal subjects: test-retest variability, learning effect, nor- mative range, influence of optical defocus and cataract ex- traction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:5320-31
  9. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Parisi L, Zeppieri M. Probing glau- coma visual damage by Rarebit perimetry. Br J Ophthamol 2005;89:180-4.