| Autor: |
Schiefer, U., Malsam, A., Flad, M., Stumpp, F., Dietrich, T. J., Paetzold, J., Vonthein, R., Knorr, M., Denk, P.O. |
| Zdroj: |
European Journal of Ophthalmology; January 2001, Vol. 11 Issue: Supplement 2 p57-62, 6p |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose We compared detection rates of glaucomatous visual field defects (VFDs) between a conventional rectangular stimulus grid and locally condensed test point arrangements in morphologically suspicious regions.Methods Humphrey Field Analyzer model 630 (HFA I, program 30-2 with a rectangular 6° × 6° grid) was used as the conventional perimetric method. Individual local test-point condensation was realized by fundus-oriented perimetry (FOP) on the Tuebingen Computer Campimeter (TCC).Results Of a total of 66 glaucoma patients, or suspected sufferers, 23 showed normal findings and 27 showed pathological findings with both methods. In 15 cases we found normal visual fields in HFA 30-2, whereas FOP revealed early glaucomatous functional damage. Only one case showed pathological HFA results, while FOP was normal. Detection rates of VFDs significantly differed between the two methods (p < 0.001; sign test).Conclusions FOP, using individually condensed test grids, significantly increases detection rates of glaucomatous VFDs in morphologically suspicuous areas compared with a conventional HFA 30-2 technique using equidistant rectangular (6° × 6°) test point arrangements. |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
