Variations in Intraocular Pressure after Visual Field Examination

Introduction. According to the level of intraocular pressure (IOP), open angle glaucoma is divided into high tension glaucoma (HTG) and normal tension glaucoma (NTG). Objective. To determine if there are differences in the distribution of patients by age and sex between NTG and HTG. Methods. Our prospective study included 30 patients with NTG and 30 with HTG. A complete eye examination was performed. The examination included measuring of intraocular pressure by Goldmann applanation tonometry, examination of optic disc head by indirect ophthalmoscopy with Volk 90 D lens and visual field examination using the Octopus program. Results. The average damage of visual field in the group of patients with NTG was 8.14?4.43 dB, while in the group with HTG it was 7.40?2.84 dB (p>0.05). The average age of the group of patients with NTG was 66?11.58 years, while among those with HTG the average age was 59.7?11.63 years (p<0.01). Among the patients with NTG there were three times more women than men (?2=9.124; p<0.01), while in the group of patients with HTG there were more men than women, but without statistically significant difference between the tested groups (?2=1.851; p>0.05). Conclusion. Open angle glaucoma is a disease of elderly population. According to our results, risk factors for this disease can be age and sex. NTG is more frequently present than HTG among elderly population and females.

Download Full-text

Open-Angle Glaucoma: Variations in the Intraocular Pressure After Visual Field Examination

Journal of Glaucoma ◽

10.1097/00061198-200304000-00005 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 114-118 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Santi Maria Recupero ◽

Maria Teresa Contestabile ◽

Luciano Taverniti ◽

Gianfrancesco Maria Villani ◽

Vincenzo Recupero

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Visual Field ◽

Open Angle Glaucoma ◽

Open Angle ◽

Visual Field Examination

Download Full-text

Intraocular pressure before and after visual field examination

Eye ◽

10.1038/sj.eye.6702552 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 21 (12) ◽

pp. 1479-1481 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

L Martin

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Visual Field ◽

Visual Field Examination ◽

Before And After

Download Full-text

Visual Field Examination in Glaucoma Patients : Humphrey Visual Field Analysis vs Amsler Grid

Ophthalmologica Indonesiana ◽

10.35749/journal.v43i2.152 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 124

Author(s):

Ivana Tanoko ◽

Fifin L Rahmi

Keyword(s):

Visual Field ◽

Visual Field Defect ◽

Glaucoma Patient ◽

Field Analysis ◽

Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy ◽

Visual Field Examination ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Rnfl Thickness ◽

Amsler Grid ◽

Field Defect

Introduction and Objective: Glaucoma is the leading cause of global irreversible blindness, signed by glaucomatous optic neuropathy related to visual field defect. The purpose of the study is comparing visual field defect examination using HVFA to Amsler Grid in glaucoma patient at dr. Kariadi Hospital. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. Amsler Grid were performed to the patients who have reliable HVFA at last 6 months and presented as descriptive analytic results. Result: There were 40 eyes involved in this study from 27 patients (15 men, 12 women), 26-68 years old and visual acuity 1/60-6/6. Seventeen eyes showed visual field defect in HVFA and Amsler Grid had average MD - 24.97 dB, CDR 0.89 and RNFL thickness 51.74. We found that 11 eyes didn’t showed in both of examination had average MD -8.06, CDR 0.63 and RNFL thickness 103.23 and those parameters are significantly different to the 17 eyes before (p<0.05). Data from 12 eyes that showed visual field defect only one of examination (9 only in HVFA and 3 in Amsler Grid) didn’t show difference statistically each other. Conclusion: HFVA and Amsler Grid seemed to be comparable in detecting visual field defect in advanced glaucoma.

Download Full-text

The relationship between intraocular pressure and visual field defects

Experimental Eye Research ◽

10.1016/0014-4835(75)90185-2 ◽

1975 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 182

Author(s):

A.I. Friedmann

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Visual Field ◽

Visual Field Defects ◽

The Relationship ◽

Field Defects

Download Full-text

Relationship between mean follow-up intraocular pressure, rates of visual field progression and current target intraocular pressure guidelines

British Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317406 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. bjophthalmol-2020-317406

Author(s):

Bruna Melchior ◽

Carlos Gustavo De Moraes ◽

Jayter S Paula ◽

George A Cioffi ◽

Christopher A Girkin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Visual Field ◽

Treatment Guidelines ◽

Evaluation Study ◽

Mean Deviation ◽

Racial Groups ◽

Current Guideline ◽

Registration Number ◽

The Mean

AimsTo investigate if eyes presenting intraocular pressure (IOP) within the limits of current guideline-driven target IOP indeed experience slow rates of glaucomatous visual field (VF) progression.MethodsA total of 8598 24-2 VF tests from 603 eyes from the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study with manifest glaucoma were included. The sample was split into three groups based on baseline VF mean deviation (MD): G1 (better than −5.0 dB), G2 (−5.0 to −10 dB) and G3 (worse than −10 dB). We investigated the relationship between existing target IOP guidelines and rates of MD progression in these groups.ResultsFor stable eyes, the medians and IQR of the mean follow-up IOP were G1=15.0 mmHg (IQR: 13.1 to 17.7), G2=13.2 mmHg (IQR: 11.6 to 14.3) and G3=11.9 mmHg (IQR: 10.1 to 13.8) (p<0.01). When considering the mean follow-up IOP within the limits proposed by current guidelines, the median MD slopes were: −0.20 dB/y (IQR: −0.43 to −0.02) for G1<21 mmHg, −0.19 dB/y (IQR: −0.51 to −0.01) for G2<18 mmHg and −0.15 dB/y (IQR: −0.47 to 0.05) for G3<15 mmHg (p=0.63). There were no significant differences between racial groups.ConclusionIn a sample of patients with manifest glaucoma, despite substantial variability between eyes, adherence to treatment guidelines helped slow the rates of global VF progression at various stages of disease.Trial registration numberclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00221923.

Download Full-text