Topographic Spatial Summation in Glaucoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 538-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gonzalez De La Rosa ◽  
M. Gonzalez-Hernandez ◽  
V. Lozano Lopez ◽  
D. Perera Sanz

Purpose Stimulus luminance (L) and area (A) are related by the equation LxAk=constant. The authors evaluated the k value at 66 positions of the central visual field in patients with glaucoma, to modify L and A simultaneously in order to examine advanced glaucomas with a bigger dynamic range. Methods The luminance limitation of a computer screen with automatic photometric control was compensated for by increasing the stimulus area in the range between 0 and 17 dB, using the k topographic values previously calculated on normal subjects. Four initial series of 21, 12, 10, and 10 glaucomas were sequentially examined with the Octopus 311 in which the stimulus size cannot be freely changed during the examination, and with the experimental method (Pulsar-SAP) modifying stimulus sizes to equal the results. k Final estimation was verified in 60 new cases. Results k Values increase progressively with defect deepness. Values higher than those of the normal population with equivalent topographic differences were obtained. Correlation between indices was as follows: MD: r=0.94 (p<0.0001); square root of the loss of variance (sLV): r=0.93 (p<0.0001). Frequency of local defects was similar in both procedures. Average topographic differences between thresholds were usually less than 1 dB. The average threshold difference favored Pulsar-SAP by 0.45 dB at those points where the average threshold of both examinations was less than 18 dB and 0.37 dB where such average was higher than or equal to 18 dB. Conclusions k Value is higher in patients with glaucoma than in normal subjects, although the topographic features are similar. It is feasible to design a scale combining stimulus luminance and sizes to use screens with relative low brightness as surfaces for visual field examination.

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212092645
Author(s):  
Say Kiang Foo ◽  
Robert Peter Cubbidge ◽  
Rebekka Heitmar

Background Numerous fast threshold strategies have been developed in perimetry which use maximum likelihood approaches to estimate the threshold. A recent approach to threshold estimation has been developed estimating the threshold from a limited number of test points which further reduces examination time. This strategy, SPARK, has not been compared to the SITA strategy. The aim of this study was to compare SPARK with SITA in a normal cohort to evaluate within and between strategy agreement in threshold estimates. Methods A total of 83 normal subjects each underwent two visual field examinations with SITA and SPARK on two separate occasions on a randomly selected eye. The eye examined and the order of strategy examined first was randomised but remained constant over the two perimetry visits. Results Visual field examination with SPARK Precision was on average 33% faster than SITA Standard. A positive correlation between group mean sensitivities of SITA Standard and SPARK Precision (rho = 0.713, p < 0.001) was found. In total, 95% of stimulus locations were located within the 95% limits of agreement and linear regression on the differences in sensitivities showed no statistically significant proportional bias (t = 1.713, p = 0.09). Pointwise analysis showed SITA Standard had significantly larger variability for individual stimulus locations examined over two visits when compared to SPARK (t = 9.175, p < 0.001). Conclusion The clinical examination of SPARK yields a sensitivity profile similar to SITA but in a faster examination time. The lower threshold variability of SPARK may be as a result of data smoothing in the threshold estimation process.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Kalinowska ◽  
Katarzyna Nowomiejska ◽  
Agnieszka Brzozowska ◽  
Ryszard Maciejewski ◽  
Robert Rejdak

Aim. To detect abnormality of the visual function in naïve patients with cystoid diabetic macular edema (DME) using M-charts, Amsler test, and white on white (W/W) and blue on yellow (B/Y) perimetry. Methods. There were 64 eyes included in the study: 30 eyes with DME, 22 eyes with diabetes without DME, and 12 eyes of normal subjects. Conventional W/W perimetry and B/Y perimetry were performed within the central 10° of the visual field. To assess metamorphopsia, Amsler test and M-charts were used. Results. The rate of detection of metamorphopsia was 37% with Amsler test examination and 50% with M-charts. Specificity of both tests was 100%. We found a significant difference between vertical scores of M-charts in all groups, but not in horizontal scores (p<0.0001). Mean defect (MD) was 8.9 dB and 3.6 dB and loss variance (LV) 4.8 dB and 3.3 dB (p<0.0001). Conclusions. M-chart is more sensitive than Amsler test method for detection of metamorphopsia. The MD and LV are higher in b/y in comparison to W/W perimetry. B/Y perimetry and M-charts are more sensitive than conventional methods for detecting the visual function loss in cystoid DME.


2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 124
Author(s):  
Ivana Tanoko ◽  
Fifin L Rahmi

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 223 ◽  
pp. 229-240
Author(s):  
Eren Ekici ◽  
Sasan Moghimi ◽  
Huiyuan Hou ◽  
James Proudfoot ◽  
Linda M. Zangwill ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 438-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Luttrell ◽  
Sall Watters

Abstract We used a computer-based method to help validate the reference ranges of assays for triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxin (T4). A retrospective search of a database of laboratory results for the previous six months identified all patients with apparent euthyroid status, as defined by methods independent of the immunoassay under review. A computer-generated reference group (CGR Group) of 2001 records had a gaussian distribution of T4 values and a reference range (mean +/- 2 SD) of 56-161 nmol/L, compared with the supplier's suggested range for euthyroid subjects (58-148 nmol/L) and an in-house range of 60-144 nmol/L for a group of 97 normal subjects. A similar CGR Group of 1902 records gave a reference range for T3 of 0.7-2.1 nmol/L (manufacturer's range 0.8-2.8; normal subjects 0.8-2.2). An attempt to devise a reference range for thyrotropin failed when we found that its concentration in the population of patients with normal values for thyroid hormones was distributed differently from that in the normal population. The method is intended to be used in addition to conventionally derived ranges based on results for healthy subjects. It allows the laboratory to conveniently verify the reference ranges for T3 and T4 assays at regular intervals by using very large samples with appropriate age, sex, and weight distribution, drawn from the population of patients' samples submitted for analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document