COMPARISON OF FAST STRATEGIES WITH NORMAL THRESHOLD STRATEGY USING OCTOPUS PROGRAMME M2 IN CENTRAL FIELD DEFECTS

• Main Authors: Mojca Urbančič, Marko Hawlina
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Slovenian Medical Association 2002-12-01
• Series: Zdravniški Vestnik
• Subjects: computer assisted perimetry; normal threshold strategy; dynamic strategy; TOP strategy; central field defects
• Online Access: http://vestnik.szd.si/index.php/ZdravVest/article/view/1748
• ISSN: 1318-0347; 1581-0224

<p>Background. Fast test strategies are relatively new methods for assessing differential light sensitivity threshold in computer assisted perimetry. The purpose of our study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy of normal threshold strategy, dynamic strategy and TOP (Tendency Oriented Perimetry) strategy by testing central visual field with programme Octopus M2, which has the greatest concentration of test points (81 test points in the central 10 degrees area). A similar comparative study with programme Octopus M2 has not been done yet.</p><p>Methods. 30 normal eyes and 30 eyes with central field defects of different degrees and etiology were tested. The testing was performed with Octopus 101 perimeter in standard conditions. The programme M2 was used. Each eye was tested three times – once with normal, once with dynamic and once with TOP strategy. Each subject had at least 20 minutes of break between each testing. The sequence of the strategies was equally alternated for all three strategies.</p><p>Differences between strategies were statistically evaluated regarding examination time, parameters MS (Mean Sensitivity), MD (Mean Defect) and LV (Loss Variance), the extent and depth of a field defect, sensitivity and specificity.</p><p>Results. Fast strategies significantly reduce examination time. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the observed parameters in the group of eyes with field defects. There were statistically significant differences in MS and MD in the group of normal eyes (p &lt; 0.01), but these differences were not clinically important. All three strategies are well comparable regarding sensitivity and specificity.</p><p>Conclusions. Fast test strategies (especially TOP strategy) represent a good alternative to normal threshold strategy. Better efficiency of fast strategies justifies their greater clinical application.<br /><br /></p>