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

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

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.

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).