Aim. To compare semikinetic perimetry (SKP) on Octopus 900 perimetry to a peripheral static programme with Humphrey automated perimetry. Methods. Prospective cross-section study comparing Humphrey full field (FF) 120 two zone programme to a screening protocol for SKP on Octopus perimetry. Results were independently graded for presence/absence of field defect plus type and location of defect. Results. 64 patients (113 eyes) underwent dual perimetry assessment. Mean duration of assessment for SKP was 4.54 minutes ±0.18 and for FF120 ( ). 80% of results were correctly matched for normal or abnormal visual fields using the I4e target versus FF120, and 73.5% were correctly matched using the I2e target versus FF120. When comparing Octopus results with combined I4e and I2e isopters to the FF120 result, a match for normal or abnormal fields was recorded in 87%. Conclusions. Humphrey perimetry test duration was generally longer than Octopus SKP. In the absence of kinetic perimetry, peripheral static suprathreshold programme options such as FF120 may be useful for detection of visual field defects. However, statokinetic dissociation may occur. Octopus SKP utilising both I4e and I2e targets provides detailed information of both the defect depth and size and may provide a more representative view of the actual visual field defect. 1. Introduction Visual field assessment is a valuable test in the neuro-ophthalmology clinic for determining presence of visual field deficit, aiding localisation of pathological lesion, and for recording improvement, stabilization, or deterioration of the underlying condition. Both kinetic and static perimetry options are frequently used in neuro-ophthalmology clinics. Static perimetry is often undertaken with the Humphrey automated perimeter (Humphrey Instruments, Dublin, CA), whilst kinetic perimetry has most commonly been undertaken using the Goldmann manual perimeter (Haag Streit, Switzerland). Both options, when directly compared, have been shown to reliably detect visual field loss [1–6]. Central static programmes such as the SITA 30-2 strategy have been used most with Humphrey perimetry in these studies. However, there is less information regarding the use of peripheral static programmes using Humphrey perimetry. Semiautomated kinetic perimetry (SKP) has been further developed in recent years, most notably with the Octopus 900 perimeter (Haag Streit, Switzerland). Assessment of the peripheral visual field in addition to assessment of the central field is often required in the evaluation of patients attending neuro-ophthalmology
References
[1]
J. L. Keltner, C. A. Johnson, J. O. Spurr, and R. W. Beck, “Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 128, no. 5, pp. 543–553, 1999.
[2]
K. Nowomiejska, R. Vonthein, J. Paetzold, Z. Zagorski, R. Kardon, and U. Schiefer, “Comparison between semiautomated kinetic perimetry and conventional goldmann manual kinetic perimetry in advanced visual field loss,” Ophthalmology, vol. 112, no. 8, pp. 1343–1354, 2005.
[3]
K. Nowomiejska, R. Rejdak, Z. Zagorski, and T. Zarnowski, “Comparison of static automated perimetry and semi-automated kinetic perimetry in patients with bilateral visible optic nerve head drusen,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 801–805, 2009.
[4]
K. Nowomiejska, R. Vonthein, J. Paetzold, Z. Zagorski, R. Kardon, and U. Schiefer, “Reaction time during semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) in patients with advanced visual field loss,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 65–69, 2010.
[5]
G. Szatmáry, V. Biousse, and N. J. Newman, “Can Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm fast perimetry be used as an alternative to Goldmann perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic practice?” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 120, no. 9, pp. 1162–1173, 2002.
[6]
A. M. F. Wong and J. A. Sharpe, “A comparison of tangent screen, goldmann, and humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions,” Ophthalmology, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 527–544, 2000.
[7]
F. J. Rowe and N. J. Sarkies, “Assessment of visual function in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a prospective study,” Eye, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 111–118, 1998.
[8]
M. Wall and D. George, “Idiopathic intracranial hypertension. A prospective study of 50 patients,” Brain, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 155–180, 1991.
[9]
A. J. W. King, A. Taguri, A. C. Wadood, and A. Azuara-Blanco, “Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 240, no. 6, pp. 481–487, 2002.
[10]
S. L. Pineles, N. J. Volpe, E. Miller-Ellis et al., “Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 363–369, 2006.
[11]
J. L. Keltner, C. A. Johnson, K. E. Cello et al., “Classification of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 643–650, 2003.
[12]
B. K. Nayak and A. Hazra, “How to choose the right statistical test,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 85–86, 2011.
[13]
J. Nevalainen, J. Paetzold, E. Krapp, R. Vonthein, C. A. Johnson, and U. Schiefer, “The use of semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) to monitor advanced glaucomatous visual field loss,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 246, no. 9, pp. 1331–1339, 2008.
[14]
C. Hudson and J. M. Wild, “Assessment of physiologic statokinetic dissociation by automated perimetry,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 3162–3168, 1992.
[15]
E. Gandolfo, “Stato-kinetic dissociation in subjects with normal and abnormal visual fields,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 408–414, 1996.
