Automated perimetry in a neuro-ophthalmologic practice

Visual field examinations were performed with both the Fieldmaster Automated Perimeter and the Goldmann kinetic perimeter on 60 patients, aged 10 to 70 years (118 eyes) referred for neuro-ophthalmologic evaluation. Results suggest that the Fieldmaster perimeter is almost as sensitive as the Goldmann perimeter in identifying abnormal visual fields (99.2%). False-positive results were noted in only two cases (1.6%). Fieldmaster perimetry demonstrated certain advantages over Goldmann perimetry in easily fatigued, inattentive, or uncooperative patients. Recent technological advances in automated perimetry resulting in greater sensitivity and reproducibility of results now offer a viable alternative to Goldmann perimetry.