Premium
Relationship between flicker FDF perimetry and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma patients
Author(s) -
CALVO PEREZ P,
GILARRIBAS L,
FERRERAS A,
ALTEMIR I,
OTIN S,
FERNANDEZ S,
GARCIA E,
GUERRI MONCLUS N
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.362.x
Subject(s) - glaucoma , ophthalmology , optometry , medicine , flicker , computer science , computer graphics (images)
Purpose To compare the main indices of flicker FDF perimetry (FDF, Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) with standard automated perimetry (SAP) in glaucoma patients. Methods Twenty‐three open‐angle glaucoma patients were prospectively and consecutively selected. Glaucomatous patients had an intraocular pressure higher than 21 mmHg and glaucomatous optic disc appearance. All of them underwent at least one reliable perimetry with each device. SAPs were performed with a FDF perimeter (24‐2 ASTA‐Standard test) and Humphrey perimeter (Carl Zeiss (24‐2 SITA standard algorithm). The Kolmogorov Smirnov test was applied to check that the data were normally distributed. Only one eye per subject was included in the study. Spearman correlations were calculated between both devices : mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI). Results : Mean age was 65.07±8.67 years. MD of SAP was ‐6.73 ± 6.23 dB, and MD of FDF was ‐7.70 ± 5.84 dB (p=0,123); PSD of SAP was 6.07 ± 3.62, and PSD of FDF was 3.91 ± 1.89 (p = 0.953). The correlations between MDs were 0.736 (p<0.001) and between PSDs were 0.320 (p>0.05) Conclusion Moderate correlations were found between main visual field indices both devices. Altough no differences were found, FDF tends to present MD values lower than Humphrey.