Comparison of Humphrey Matrix Frequency Doubling Technology to standard automated perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disease

Abstract

Purpose:We compared Humphrey Matrix FDT 30-2 (FDT) and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer 30-2 SITA standard (SAP) in the assessment of anterior (optic nerve or chiasm) and posterior (retro-chiasmal) afferent visual pathway defects.Materials and Methods:In this retrospective comparative study, the charts of 37 patients (16 males, range 13-84 years, mean 72.1), with neuro-ophthalmic visual field defects who were tested with both FDT and SAP, were reviewed. Two masked graders assessed the concordance and extent of field defects between the perimeters. The mean concordance between anterior and posterior disease was compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) of each perimeter were correlated with the Spearman coefficient.Results:Twenty-eight patients had anterior and nine had posterior disease. Most had a fair or good concordance (89.3% anterior, 88.9% posterior). When comparing anterior to posterior disease, the mean concordance of the defects of the two parameters was not statistically different (P = 0.94 and P = 0.61 for total deviation and pattern deviation, respectively). The MD and PSD between perimeters had a significant correlation.Conclusions:Our series, using 30-2 field analysis, demonstrates fair to good correlation between FDT and SAP in the majority of patients. In roughly 10% findings between FDT and SAP were discordant. This difference was similar for anterior and posterior disease.

Homonymous hemianopia: challenges and solutions

“…25 With the use of a smaller stimulus size, the second-generation Matrix FDT has better correlation with standard perimetry when measuring neurologic disorders. 26 – 28 However, the Matrix may still be less sensitive than standard automated perimetry in detecting HH. Although not a statistically significant difference, hemianopic defects found with Goldmann perimetry were detected in 88% of cases with standard automated perimetry but only 69% of cases using the Matrix FDT.…”

Development of an LCD-Based Visual Field System

“…Several studies have compared MD, PSD, and AUC of a new visual field perimetry with those of the standard perimetry to examine the diagnostic performance and accuracy of the new visual field perimetry. 11 12 13 14 15 16 The present study compared HFA and LVF to examine if a good concordance exists between the two test systems in both normal and glaucomatous eyes. The results of the present study show that the PSD AUC of LVF was not significantly different from that of HFA (difference in PSD AUC between LVF and HFA = 0.019), while the MD AUC of HFA was a slightly higher than that of LVF (difference in MD AUC between LVF and HFA = 0.082).…”

Diagnostic Possibilities of Standard Automatic and FunctionSpecific Perimetry (HFA, Octopus) in the Study of the Visual Field in Patients with Compression in the Chiasm-Sellar Region

“…FDT-периметрия первого поколения не всегда позволяла точно определить границы гемианопических дефектов. Связано это было с большим размером тестового стимула (рассеивание на границе областей пораженной и непораженной) и его близким расположением к вертикальному меридиану [16]. Данная проблема была решена в FDT-периметре второго поколения Humphrey Matrix FDT Perimeter -квадрантные стимулы были уменьшены по размеру с 10° до 5° (центральный с 5° до 1°) и смещены от вертикальной средней линии на 2°.…”

“…Yoon и соавт. [16] сравнили применение SITA Humphrey Matrix FDT 30-2 (FDT) и SAP Humphrey 30-2 для периметрического обследования пациентов с поражением зрительного нерва, хиазмы и ретро-хиазмальных отделов афферентного зрительного пути. Результаты на соответствие оценивались по шкалам общего отклонения (Total deviation) и отклонения паттернов (Pattern deviation) и считались «хорошими» ("good" grade), если данные SAP и FDT отличались не более чем на 5 вероятностных символов («отличаются от нормы»), p < 0,05 %.…”