Purpose Recent research has found variable evidence on the role of mesopic and dark-adapted scotopic microperimetry assessment in age-related macular degeneration. This scoping review summarises how mesopic and scotopic microperimetry can be used to assess disease progression in age-related macular degeneration and identifies gaps in the literature. Methods A population, concept, and context approach was used to develop the search strategy. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were used to conduct the literature search. The key search terms used in the databases were age-related macular degeneration and microperimetry. Results Twelve studies were eligible and included in the review. All the studies (n = 12) were conducted in European countries [Germany (9), Italy (2), and the United Kingdom (1)]. The mesopic and scotopic sensitivities were measured using the Nidek scotopic microperimeter (MP1-S) (n = 6), scotopic Macular Integrity Assessment device (S-MAIA) (n = 5), and both MP1-s and S MAIA (n = 1). 83.3% (n = 10) studied (cross-sectional design) on mesopic, scotopic microperimetry and found reduced rod (scotopic) photoreceptors sensitivities compared to cone (mesopic) photoreceptors sensitivities in patients with small and reticular pseudodrusen despite having good visual acuity. Only 16.7% (n = 2) of studies followed participants with reticular drusen/large drusen for three years (longitudinal design) and found reduced scotopic over mesopic sensitivity at baseline and localized mesopic with profound scotopic sensitivity loss during follow-ups. Conclusion Scotopic sensitivity is a better functional indicator than mesopic sensitivity to understand early and intermediate age-related macular degeneration progression. The evidence from longitudinal studies is debatable due to the limited stimuli range of existing microperimeters, smaller sample size, and lost follow-ups.

No abstract

Purpose: To evaluate visual fields using Zippy Adaptive Thresholding Algorithm (ZATA) Standard and ZATA Fast among patients with glaucoma and healthy individuals. Methods: We recruited 22 healthy participants and 55 patients with glaucoma from the ophthalmology clinics at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, India. Inclusion criteria were age 35 to 85 years, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 0.3 logMAR or better. Glaucoma patients had characteristic glaucomatous optic disc damage. All participants were free from any other ocular pathology except from mild cataract. Participants performed ZATA Standard and ZATA Fast tests on a Henson 9000 perimeter and Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard and SITA Fast tests on a Humphrey Field Analyser. Tests were repeated within 90 days to evaluate the test-retest variability. Results: The mean difference in the mean deviation (MD) values of ZATA Standard and SITA Standard tests was 1.7 dB, and that in ZATA Fast and SITA Fast tests was 0.9 dB. The sensitivity values of ZATA and SITA tests differed by 3 dB. ZATA Standard and ZATA Fast were 30% and 6% faster than the corresponding SITA tests. Grayscale and probability maps varied slightly between the four tests but represented a similar visual field for most patients in the study. Conclusions: ZATA Standard and ZATA Fast are suitable for clinical practice. However, differences between ZATA and SITA tests suggest that they should not be used interchangeably when monitoring over time. Keywords: Visual fields, glaucoma, perimetry