Related Experiment Videos
Visual-field defects in well-defined retinal lesions using Humphrey and Dicon perimeters
1State University of New York, State College of Optometry, Schnurmacher Institute for Vision Research, New York 10036, USA.
Optometry (St. Louis, Mo.)
|November 4, 2000
Summary
Both Humphrey and Dicon perimetry accurately map retinal lesions, correlating well with fundus photography. Dicon perimetry offers a faster testing time for patients with visual field defects.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Visual Science
- Medical Imaging
Background:
- Assessing visual field defects in patients with retinal lesions is crucial for diagnosis and management.
- Standard threshold programs on Humphrey and Dicon perimeters were evaluated for their ability to detect and quantify these defects.
- Comparison against fundus photography served as the gold standard for validation.
Observation:
- Eleven patients with well-defined retinal lesions underwent perimetry using Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and Dicon LD-400.
- Testing involved 30-2 Full Threshold or SITA Standard programs (HFA) and Central Grid Threshold program (Dicon).
- Field defects were scored and compared with fundus photography findings.
Findings:
- High positive correlations were observed between Humphrey, Dicon, and fundus photography in identifying field defects and mean deviations.
- No significant differences were found in mean scores, mean deviations, or fixation loss percentages between the perimeters.
- Dicon perimetry demonstrated a reduced testing time compared to Humphrey perimetry, particularly with the Full Threshold test.
Implications:
- Both Humphrey and Dicon perimetry are effective tools for mapping scotomas in patients with retinal lesions, showing comparable accuracy to fundus photography.
- Dicon perimetry offers a time-efficient alternative for visual field testing.
- These findings support the use of both perimeters in clinical practice for evaluating visual field loss.