Semi‐automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry

Purpose To evaluate the clinical usefulness and reproducibility of (semi‐)automated kinetic perimetry of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey field analyzer 3 ( HFA 3) compared to Goldmann perimetry as reference technique. Methods A prospective interventional study of two study groups, divided into three subgroups. The first study group consisted of 28 patients, performing one visual field examination on each of the three devices. A second group of 30 patients performed four examinations, one on Goldmann and three on Octopus 900 with the following testing strategies: (1) with reaction time ( RT ) vector, no headphone; (2) without RT vector, no headphone; and (3) without RT vector, with headphone. Comparisons for V4e and I4e stimuli were made of the mean isopter radius ( MIR ) and of the distances of the isopter to the central visual axis in four directions. Statistical analysis was made with the R software version 3.2.2. Results For V4e stimuli, the mean isopter radius showed no statistic significant difference comparing Goldmann to HFA 3 [p‐value = 0.144; confidence interval ( CI ) −0.152 to 0.019] and comparing Goldmann to Octopus 900 without RT vector, either with (p‐value = 0.347; CI −0.023 to 0.081) or without headphone (p‐value = 0.130; CI −0.011 to 0.095). Octopus 900 with RT vector produced a significantly larger MIR for V4e stimuli in comparison to Goldmann (p‐value < 0.001). I4e stimuli produced statistically significantly larger visual field areas when comparing HFA 3 and Octopus 900 to Goldmann perimetry. Conclusion Humphrey field analyzer 3 and Octopus 900 without RT vector are promising successors of Goldmann perimetry.