Perimetric Comparison Between the IMOvifa and Humphrey Field Analyzer

Abstract

Précis: IMO visual function analyzer (IMOvifa), a binocular perimeter, has similar output to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), but reduced the measurement time. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of IMOvifa, a perimeter that performs binocular visual field (VF) testing, and to compare its results with standard automated perimetry. Methods: All patients underwent HFA 24–2 SITA-Fast and IMOvifa 24–2 AIZE-Rapid on the same day. Mean deviation (MD), pattern SD (PSD), foveal threshold, and visual field index (VFI) were compared between the 2 perimeters using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman plot. Measurement time for performing VF for both eyes was also collected for each device. Results: In this cross-sectional study, 138 eyes (including 25 healthy, 48 glaucoma suspects, and 65 primary open angle glaucoma) of 69 patients were evaluated. Measurement time was significantly faster for IMOvifa compared with HFA (256 vs. 419 s, P<0.001). No significant differences were seen in MD and VFI between HFA and IMOvifa (both P>0.05). Significant differences were seen in mean PSD 3.2 (2.7, 3.6) dB for HFA versus 4.1 (3.5, 4.6) for IMOvifa (P<0.001), and foveal threshold 33.9 (33.1, 34.6) dB for HFA versus 30.6 (29.3, 31.9) dB for IMOvifa (P<0.001). Pearson r was strong for MD (r=0.90, P<0.001), PSD (r=0.78, P<0.001), and VFI (r=0.94, P<0.001). The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) was −0.1 (−3.8, 3.5) dB for MD, −0.4 (−3.4, 2.5) dB for PSD, and 0.1 (−8.9, 9.1) dB for VFI, respectively. Conclusions: IMOvifa reduced measurement time by 39%. MD, PSD, and VFI values for IMOvifa showed good agreement with HFA SITA-Fast strategy. This perimeter reduced fatigue for both patient and examiner. Additional studies are needed to determine whether it will be useful for routine VF testing.

Comparison of the TEMPO Binocular Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer

“…8 AIZE-Rapid maintains the AIZE test method but enhances the representation of interaction with adjacent measurement points. 4 For the current study, all patients underwent HFA 24 − 2 SITA-Fast and TEMPO 24 − 2 Ambient Interactive Zippy Estimated by Sequential Testing (AIZE)-Rapid on the same day in a randomized order using Goldmann size III (0.431° visual angle) stimuli. Since the purpose of this study was to compare HFA and TEMPO, no exclusions were made at speci c cutoff values for reliability indices ( xation losses, false negatives and false positives) for both devices.…”

“…3 TEMPO, formally called IMOvifa, is a novel standard automated perimeter with binocular random testing. [4][5][6] Recent studies have suggested that binocular VF testing may effectively suppress eye movements and stabilize xation, thus potentially enhancing the reliability of test results. 7 Moreover, this device also adjusts the stimulus presentation point by tracking eye movements.…”

Comparison of the TEMPO binocular perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer

“…VF testing demands active participation from patients and presents several challenges such as lengthy test durations and high variability due to its subjective nature 3 . TEMPO, formally called IMOvifa, is a novel standard automated perimeter with binocular random testing 4 – 6 . Recent studies have suggested that binocular VF testing may effectively suppress eye movements and stabilize fixation, thus potentially enhancing the reliability of test results 7 .…”

Participant Experience Using Novel Perimetry Tests to Monitor Glaucoma Progression

“…There have not been studies directly comparing test time between the SVFA and the HVF 24-2 SITA Standard, though different strategies of both devices have been compared and the SVFA VF tests have mostly, though not always, been faster. 7,20,21 The MRF VF test is typically significantly faster than the HVF 24-2 SITA standard. 6,18 Prior studies investigating the usability of portable perimetry devices have found that most participants prefer tablet and VR VF tests to the more frequently used office-based perimeters; however, these were cross-sectional.…”

“…Both the SVFA and the MRF are smaller than the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the SVFA can automatically occlude the nontesting eye, so the patient does not need to use an eye patch. There have not been studies directly comparing test time between the SVFA and the HVF 24-2 SITA Standard, though different strategies of both devices have been compared and the SVFA VF tests have mostly, though not always, been faster 7,20,21 . The MRF VF test is typically significantly faster than the HVF 24-2 SITA standard 6,18 …”