Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability

Bjerre, Anne; Codina, Charlotte; Griffiths, Helen

doi:10.3109/01658107.2014.902971

Cited by 16 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 64-degree retest interval of the III.1.e isopter compares favorably to data reported previously. 24,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] With manual Goldmann perimetry, the peripheral borders of the visual field are traditionally determined with the I.4.e stimulus in healthy visual fields or with the III.4.e or V.4.e stimuli when visual fields have already sustained some damage. In this study, we used the III.1.e stimulus (approximately equivalent to the I.3.e isopter, which is the largest Goldmann isopter not constrained by facial features, in healthy eyes), to keep stimulus size similar to that most often used in static perimetry (0.43 degrees).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma

Mönter

Crabb

Artes

2017

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Mönter VM, Crabb DP, Artes PH. Reclaiming the periphery: automated kinetic perimetry for measuring peripheral visual fields in patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:868-875. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-19868 PURPOSE. Peripheral vision is important for mobility, balance, and guidance of attention, but standard perimetry examines only <20% of the entire visual field. We report on the relation between central and peripheral visual field damage, and on retest variability, with a simple approach for automated kinetic perimetry (AKP) of the peripheral field.METHODS. Thirty patients with glaucoma (median age 68, range 59-83 years; median Mean Deviation À8.0, range À16.3-0.1 dB) performed AKP and static automated perimetry (SAP) (German Adaptive Threshold Estimation strategy, 24-2 test). Automated kinetic perimetry consisted of a fully automated measurement of a single isopter (III.1.e). Central and peripheral visual fields were measured twice on the same day.RESULTS. Peripheral and central visual fields were only moderately related (Spearman's q, 0.51). Approximately 90% of test-retest differences in mean isopter radius were < 64 deg. Relative to the range of measurements in this sample, the retest variability of AKP was similar to that of SAP. CONCLUSIONS.Patients with similar central visual field loss can have strikingly different peripheral visual fields, and therefore measuring the peripheral visual field may add clinically valuable information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma

Mönter

Crabb

Artes

2017

Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…V4e or III4e) along limited test meridians, limiting their ability to inform clinical practice[ 9 – 12 ]. Semi-automated kinetic perimetry (Octopus 900) is reported to be feasible in children[ 13 ]. However there is no evidence regarding its comparative feasibility and reliability, which is necessary to understand whether the Octopus can reliably replace the Goldmann as the perimeter of choice in children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): Feasibility, Reliability and Repeatability of Perimetry in Children

Patel¹,

Cumberland

Walters

et al. 2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate feasibility, reliability and repeatability of perimetry in children.MethodsA prospective, observational study recruiting 154 children aged 5–15 years, without an ophthalmic condition that affects the visual field (controls), identified consecutively between May 2012 and November 2013 from hospital eye clinics. Perimetry was undertaken in a single sitting, with standardised protocols, in a randomised order using the Humphrey static (SITA 24–2 FAST), Goldmann and Octopus kinetic perimeters. Data collected included test duration, subjective experience and test quality (incorporating examiner ratings on comprehension of instructions, fatigue, response to visual and auditory stimuli, concentration and co-operation) to assess feasibility and reliability. Testing was repeated within 6 months to assess repeatability.ResultsOverall feasibility was very high (Goldmann=96.1%, Octopus=89% and Humphrey=100% completed the tests). Examiner rated reliability was ‘good’ in 125 (81.2%) children for Goldmann, 100 (64.9%) for Octopus and 98 (63.6%) for Humphrey perimetry. Goldmann perimetry was the most reliable method in children under 9 years of age. Reliability improved with increasing age (multinomial logistic regression (Goldmann, Octopus and Humphrey), p<0.001). No significant differences were found for any of the three test strategies when examining initial and follow-up data outputs (Bland-Altman plots, n=43), suggesting good test repeatability, although the sample size may preclude detection of a small learning effect.ConclusionsFeasibility and reliability of formal perimetry in children improves with age. By the age of 9 years, all the strategies used here were highly feasible and reliable. Clinical assessment of the visual field is achievable in children as young as 5 years, and should be considered where visual field loss is suspected. Since Goldmann perimetry is the most effective strategy in children aged 5–8 years and this perimeter is no longer available, further research is required on a suitable alternative for this age group.

show abstract

“…We have produced area data for Octopus perimetry, and elected not to correct for reaction time as children can demonstrate variable reaction times through the course of a single test, and thus our results are not comparable with others. 7 Spline models describe changes of isopter values in relation to isopter area by fitting a nonparametric smooth function using curved lines. The use of linear models in our study, using straight as opposed to curved lines when estimating isopter area, affects the generalizability of these results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 Test points were started at manually plotted locations on the Octopus, with an automated speed of 5 /s. 7 For those children who could tolerate further testing, additional points were tested, in a nonrandomized order along meridians 15 adjacent to the cardinal points starting with temporal field locations. This "filling in" between test points allowed for more accurate plotting of VF shape, up to a maximum of 24 points per isopter.…”

Section: Kinetic Visual Field Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC)

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability

Cited by 16 publications

References 31 publications

Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma

Reclaiming the Periphery: Automated Kinetic Perimetry for Measuring Peripheral Visual Fields in Patients With Glaucoma

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): Feasibility, Reliability and Repeatability of Perimetry in Children

Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About