Die Erfaßbarkeit glaukomatöser Gesichtsfeldausfälle mit dem automatischen Perimeter Oktopus

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Twenty-three patients between 31 and 76 years of age suffering from either hypertension of glaucoma underwent automatic perimetry with Octopus programs 31 or 32, followed by program G-1. This was done to compare the information content of the latter, new program with that of the former two, long-used in different combinations. Only one eye of any one patient was considered in this study. Using an evaluation program, the G-1 program calculates the so-called "field indices" which help to interpret the results. These field indices are the mean differential light sensitivity threshold (mDLS), the loss variance (LV), and the corrected loss variance (corrected for short-term fluctuations (CLV)). In order to compare programs 31, 32, and their combination 31 + 32, with the field indices of program G-1, the mean DLS was taken from the Delta evaluation program, while the mean defect, the loss variance, and the corrected loss variance were calculated on the basis of programs, 31, 32, and the combination of them. The mDLS and mean defect determined with program G-1 were significantly different from those found with programs, 31, 32, and the combination of them. On the one hand, this was due to the difference in test patterns, that of G-1 being more centrally weighted; on the other hand, this is indicative of the precision and discrimination capability of Octopus measurements. Calculation of loss variance and corrected loss variance reveals no significant difference between the examination methods as regards these field indices, that is, between G-1 and 31, 32, or 31 + 32. Comparison of the results of the old and new programs, as well as of the results of the two runs of program G-1, shows that the more pathologic these field indices are, the greater the possible percent deviation from measurement to measurement will be. Accordingly, experience is necessary to estimate the meaning of differences in field indices for the course of the disease process. With regard to detection of the spread of field defect, program G-1 is seen to be slightly superior to program 31, about equal to program 32, and not at all superior to the combination 31 + 32, although this latter combination has 2-1/3 times as many test points as program G-1. This program may be considered much suitable for routine work than are programs 31, 32, or the combination of them, because of the great saving in time afforded by program G-1 over programs 31 and 32, the availability of the accessory evaluation program which renders obsolete the use of other special evaluation programs such as program Delta, and, furthermore, because disease process of the macular region may be detected with the G-1 program from the very beginning.

This publication has 1 reference indexed in Scilit: