Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
IF – 2.1 (5-Year IF – 2.0), JCI (2023) – 0.4
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker – 4.3)
Q1 in SJR 2024, SJR score – 0.598
IC – 171.00; MNiSW – 70 pts
Initial editorial assessment and first decision within 24 h

ISSN 1899–5276 (print), ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2016, vol. 25, nr 5, September-October, p. 937–944

doi: 10.17219/acem/62142

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Comparison of Visual Field Measurement with Heidelberg Edge Perimeter and Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer in Patients with Ocular Hypertension

Kamil Kaczorowski1,B,C,D,E, Małgorzata Mulak1,A,C,E, Dorota Szumny2,3,C,D,E, Marta Baranowska4,B,C, Joanna Jakubaszko-Jabłońska2,E, Marta Misiuk-Hojło1,F

1 Department of Ophthalmology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

2 Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital, Wrocław, Poland

3 Department of Pharmacology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

4 Institute of Physics, Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland

Abstract

Background. Glaucoma is a group of eye diseases which result in damage to the optic nerve and vision loss. The most important examination in glaucoma patients is visual field assessment. One of the newer perimeters is Heidelberg Edge Perimeter (HEP).
Objectives. The aim of the study was to compare visual field measurements made with Humphrey II 740 Visual Field (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and Heidelberg Edge Perimeter (HEP) (Heidelberg Engineering). FDF stimulus (flicker defined form) in HEP stimulates magnocellular retinal cells, which are the first to be damaged in the early stage of glaucoma. Even a small loss of magnocellular cells may influence HEP visual field.
Material and Methods. The observed group consisted of 45 patients (82 eyes), age 60 ± 9.8 years, glaucoma suspects, not treated pharmacologically or surgically before, with intraocular pressure ≥ 22 mm Hg. Visual field values were measured with two different devices: Humphrey II 740 Visual Field (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and Heidelberg Edge Perimeter (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 – tested with SITA Standard program on Humphrey perimeter and ASTA Standard HEP, and Group 2 – tested with SITA Fast program on Humphrey perimeter and ASTA Standard on HEP.
Results. Few positive ΔMD results (ΔMD = MD HEP – MD HUM) were obtained in Groups 1 and 2, which means that the deviation value on the HEP perimeter was only slightly higher than the mean deviation value on Humphrey. Therefore, one can conclude that HEP perimeter may detect visual field defects with greater precision. The visual field measurements between ASTA Standard on HEP and SITA Standard on Humphrey as well as ASTA Standard on HEP and SITA Fast on Humphrey are not equal: MD values on HEP perimeter are lower than MD on Humphrey, which can mean that HEP perimeter provides more precise results and shows even early visual field lesions.
Conclusion. HEP perimeter measures visual field defects with greater precision so it should be taken into consideration for earlier glaucoma detection in routine ophthalmological diagnosis.

Key words

glaucoma, visual field, Heidelberg Edge Perimeter, ocular hypertension

References (19)

  1. Wong EY, Keeffe JE, Rait JL, Vu HT, Le A, McCarty Ph DC: Detection of undiagnosed glaucoma by eye health professionals. Ophthalmology 2004, 111, 1508–1514.
  2. Quaid PT, Flanagan JG: Defining the limits of flicker defined form: Effect of stimulus size, eccentricity and number of random dots. Vision Res 2005, 45, 1075–1084.
  3. Quaid PT, Simpson TL, Flanagan JG: Frequency doubling illusion: Detection vs. form resolution. Optom Vis Sci 2005, 82, 36–42.
  4. Flanagan JG: Glaucoma update: Epidemiology and new approaches to medical management. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998, 18, 126–132.
  5. Dannheim F: Flicker and conventional perimetry in comparison with structural changes in glaucoma. Ophthalmologe 2013, 110, 131–140.
  6. Turpin A, Artes PH, McKendrick AM: The open perimetry interface: An enabling tool for clinical visual psychophysics. J Vis 2012, 12, 1–5. DOI: 10.1167/12.11.22.
  7. Patyal S, Kotwal A, Banarji A, Gurunadh VS: Frequency doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in detection of glaucoma among glaucoma suspects. Armed Forces Med J India 2014, 70, 332–337.
  8. Fuertes-Lazaro I, Sanchez-Cano A, Ferreras A, Larrosa JM, Garcia-Martin E, Pablo LE: Topographic relationship between frequency-doubling technology threshold values. Acta Ophthalmol 2012, 90, 144–150.
  9. McKendrick AM, Johnson CA, Anderson AJ, Fortune B: Elevated vernier acuity thresholds in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002, 43, 1393–1399.
  10. Maddess T, Hemmi JM, James AC: Evidence for spatial aliasing effects in the Y-like cells of the magnocellular visual pathway. Vision Res 1998, 38, 1843–1859.
  11. Mulak M, Szumny D, Sieja-Bujewska A, Kubrak M: Heidelberg edge perimeter employment in glaucoma diagnosis – preliminary report. Adv Clin Exp Med 2012, 21, 665–670.
  12. Horn FK, Tornow RP, Junemann AG, Laemmer R, Kremers J: Perimetric measurements with flicker-defined form stimulation in comparison with conventional perimetry and retinal nerve fiber measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014, 55, 2317–2323.
  13. Marvasti AH, Tatham AJ, Weinreb RN, Medeiros FA: Heidelberg edge perimetry for the detection of early glaucomatous damage: A case report. Case Rep Ophthalmol 2013, 4, 144–150.
  14. Lamparter J, Russell RA, Schulze A, Schuff AC, Pfeiffer N, Hoffmann EM: Structure-function relationship between FDF, FDT, SAP, and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012, 53, 7553–7559.
  15. Lamparter J, Schulze A, Schuff AC, Berres M, Pfeiffer N, Hoffmann EM: Learning curve and fatigue effect of flicker defined form perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2011, 151, 1057–1064.
  16. Hasler S, Stürmer J: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Heidelberg-Edge-Perimeter® bei Patienten mit okulärer Hypertension und präperimetrischem Glaukom. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilk 2012, 229, 319–322 (in German).
  17. Gil Arribas L, Calvo P, Ferreras A, Otin S, Altemir I, Fernandez S: A comparison of perimetric results with standard automated perimetry and HEP perimetry in a group of glaucomatous patients. Acta Ophthalmol 2010, Suppl 246, 88, 0–0.
  18. Lima VC, Prata TS, De Moraes CGV, Kim J, Seiple W, Rosen RB: A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects. Br J Ophthalmol 2010, 94, 64–67.
  19. Alencar LM, Medeiros FA: The role oe standard automated perimetry and newer functional methods for glaucoma diagnosis and follow-up. Indian J Ophthalmol 2011, 59, Suppl S, 53–58.
© Wroclaw Medical University