Comparison of Fastpak with full-threshold 24-2 glaucoma field tests
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 4, 2026
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
B Gillies1, M Rivers, A M Brooks
1Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Background And Objectives:
The authors noted an underestimation of the mean deviation for field testing using the Fastpak (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA) strategy, and set out to define the extent of this difference.
Patients And Methods:
Sixty-seven eyes of 35 glaucomatous patients were examined. Patients received full-threshold 24-2 tests before and after the Fastpak strategy was used, each test on a different day. For some patients, another full-threshold test was performed using a different birth date in order to obtain a result uninfluenced by prior data.
Results:
The mean deviation (MD) was significantly underestimated by Fastpak compared with the full-threshold tests. The time taken for Fastpak was almost identical to that taken for full-threshold tests. Short-term fluctuation (SF) appeared to have very little reliability statistically, and, consistent with this, there was a greater concordance among pattern standard deviation (PSD) data than among corrected pattern standard deviation (CPSD) data.
Conclusion:
Fastpak was an effective method for charting the visual field, but did so with greater variation than full-threshold tests. It significantly underestimated the MD, and this was not a fatigue effect. Fastpak was no faster than full-threshold testing in advanced glaucoma. CPSD was a less consistent reading than PSD in these glaucomatous patients.
