Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 6, 2026
Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
Portable perimetry devices for glaucoma patients -practicality in daily clinical practice and glaucoma expert
Silvia Schrittenlocher1, Vincent Lüke2, Hanne Irle2
1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Silvia.Schrittenlocher@uk-koeln.de.
Purpose:
To assess the practicality of two novel perimetry devices for glaucoma in daily clinical practice: a head-mounted virtual reality headset and a tablet-based perimeter. Both were compared to conventional bowl perimetry and glaucoma experts qualitatively assessed the results.
Methods:
The study included 363 eyes from 199 patients. All patients performed two perimetry examinations with one or both eyes: standard automated perimetry on a conventional bowl perimeter (CBP; Octopus 900, Haag-Streit) and subsequently one of two novel perimetry methods: virtual reality perimetry (VRP; n=100 patients; "PalmScan VF2000" MicroMedicalDevice) or tablet-based perimetry using the Melbourne Rapid Fields application (MRF; n=99 patients; Glance Optical Pty.Ltd.). Additionally, a panel of 10 glaucoma experts was asked to evaluate the new methods.
Results:
There was a very high correlation between VRP and CBP for mean deviation and pattern standard deviation (ICC 0.956 and 0.825, respectively). The correlation was moderate to high with the tablet-based perimetry using the MRF application (0.832 for mean deviation and 0.566 for pattern standard deviation). 74.6% of the surveyed glaucoma experts would recommend a follow-up examination with VRP whereas only 47.1% favored a follow-up examination with MRF.
Conclusion:
Both novel tests closely corroborated the standard bowl perimetry measurements. The diagnostic agreement was very high for the virtual reality-perimeter and moderate to high for the tablet-based perimetry, Melbourne Rapid fields. Based on our questionnaire, most glaucoma experts would recommend a follow-up with either method with a strong preference for the virtual reality head-mounted device.
