Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of Octopus 900(OVF) kinetic module with Goldmann perimeter (GVF) and Humphrey 750i (HVF) perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders. Methods: During this prospective observational cross-sectional study, 17 patients (26 eyes) with neuro-opht...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Karthika Bhaskaran, Swati Phuljhele, Pawan Kumar, Rohit Saxena, Dewang Angmo, Pradeep Sharma
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2021-01-01
Series:Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2021;volume=69;issue=4;spage=918;epage=922;aulast=Bhaskaran
id doaj-ba6394c4cc924d179176cc9a1822fc9c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ba6394c4cc924d179176cc9a1822fc9c2021-03-31T06:16:51ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsIndian Journal of Ophthalmology0301-47381998-36892021-01-0169491892210.4103/ijo.IJO_1266_20Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disordersKarthika BhaskaranSwati PhuljhelePawan KumarRohit SaxenaDewang AngmoPradeep SharmaPurpose: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of Octopus 900(OVF) kinetic module with Goldmann perimeter (GVF) and Humphrey 750i (HVF) perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders. Methods: During this prospective observational cross-sectional study, 17 patients (26 eyes) with neuro-ophthalmic disorders underwent visual field examination on the three perimeters. Field defects on OVF were matched with HVF and GVF for the number of quadrants involved. An unmasked observer, and a masked observer (unaware of the clinical diagnosis) were made to separately diagnose the type of field defects on all three fields for the same patient. The pattern of field defect on OVF was compared with GVF and HVF field defects for both observers. Results: When OVF was compared with HVF and GVF, 88% eyes correctly matched for normal or abnormal visual fields, while quadrant-matching was 80% and 89% respectively. For the unmasked observer, the pattern of field defects on OVF was similar to HVF and GVF in 58% and 65% eyes respectively while for a masked observer, it was 54% and 62%. Central and paracentral scotomas showed unmatched fields when OVF was compared with HVF and GVF. When these patients were excluded, sensitivity of OVF increased to 95%. Conclusion: Clinical correlation aids in better characterisation of a field defect. All 3 perimeters are concurrent in the pattern of field defects for non-central defects. However, the default protocol on OVF may not be enough to demarcate the central and para-central scotomas. Development of a customised protocol for the assessment of central and centrocecal field defects increases the accuracy of OVF.http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2021;volume=69;issue=4;spage=918;epage=922;aulast=Bhaskarangoldmannhumphreyneuro-ophthalmologyoctopusperimetry
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Karthika Bhaskaran
Swati Phuljhele
Pawan Kumar
Rohit Saxena
Dewang Angmo
Pradeep Sharma
spellingShingle Karthika Bhaskaran
Swati Phuljhele
Pawan Kumar
Rohit Saxena
Dewang Angmo
Pradeep Sharma
Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
goldmann
humphrey
neuro-ophthalmology
octopus
perimetry
author_facet Karthika Bhaskaran
Swati Phuljhele
Pawan Kumar
Rohit Saxena
Dewang Angmo
Pradeep Sharma
author_sort Karthika Bhaskaran
title Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders
title_short Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders
title_full Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with Humphrey and Goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders
title_sort comparative evaluation of octopus semi-automated kinetic perimeter with humphrey and goldmann perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
issn 0301-4738
1998-3689
publishDate 2021-01-01
description Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of Octopus 900(OVF) kinetic module with Goldmann perimeter (GVF) and Humphrey 750i (HVF) perimeters in neuro-ophthalmic disorders. Methods: During this prospective observational cross-sectional study, 17 patients (26 eyes) with neuro-ophthalmic disorders underwent visual field examination on the three perimeters. Field defects on OVF were matched with HVF and GVF for the number of quadrants involved. An unmasked observer, and a masked observer (unaware of the clinical diagnosis) were made to separately diagnose the type of field defects on all three fields for the same patient. The pattern of field defect on OVF was compared with GVF and HVF field defects for both observers. Results: When OVF was compared with HVF and GVF, 88% eyes correctly matched for normal or abnormal visual fields, while quadrant-matching was 80% and 89% respectively. For the unmasked observer, the pattern of field defects on OVF was similar to HVF and GVF in 58% and 65% eyes respectively while for a masked observer, it was 54% and 62%. Central and paracentral scotomas showed unmatched fields when OVF was compared with HVF and GVF. When these patients were excluded, sensitivity of OVF increased to 95%. Conclusion: Clinical correlation aids in better characterisation of a field defect. All 3 perimeters are concurrent in the pattern of field defects for non-central defects. However, the default protocol on OVF may not be enough to demarcate the central and para-central scotomas. Development of a customised protocol for the assessment of central and centrocecal field defects increases the accuracy of OVF.
topic goldmann
humphrey
neuro-ophthalmology
octopus
perimetry
url http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2021;volume=69;issue=4;spage=918;epage=922;aulast=Bhaskaran
work_keys_str_mv AT karthikabhaskaran comparativeevaluationofoctopussemiautomatedkineticperimeterwithhumphreyandgoldmannperimetersinneuroophthalmicdisorders
AT swatiphuljhele comparativeevaluationofoctopussemiautomatedkineticperimeterwithhumphreyandgoldmannperimetersinneuroophthalmicdisorders
AT pawankumar comparativeevaluationofoctopussemiautomatedkineticperimeterwithhumphreyandgoldmannperimetersinneuroophthalmicdisorders
AT rohitsaxena comparativeevaluationofoctopussemiautomatedkineticperimeterwithhumphreyandgoldmannperimetersinneuroophthalmicdisorders
AT dewangangmo comparativeevaluationofoctopussemiautomatedkineticperimeterwithhumphreyandgoldmannperimetersinneuroophthalmicdisorders
AT pradeepsharma comparativeevaluationofoctopussemiautomatedkineticperimeterwithhumphreyandgoldmannperimetersinneuroophthalmicdisorders
_version_ 1724178302919245824