Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2017; 234(09): 1169-1173
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-109706
Klinische Studie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Vergleich der Ergebnisse der Flimmerperimetrie (Prototyp versus kommerziellem Perimeter)

Comparison of the Results of the Flicker Perimetry (Prototype versus Commercial Perimeter)
N. Zimmermann
Augenheilkunde, Augenklinik am Wittenbergplatz, Berlin
,
A. Hess
Augenheilkunde, Augenklinik am Wittenbergplatz, Berlin
,
C. Erb
Augenheilkunde, Augenklinik am Wittenbergplatz, Berlin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 07 May 2016

akzeptiert 23 May 2016

Publication Date:
10 August 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Analyse der Vergleichbarkeit der Flimmerperimetrie mittels Pulsar-Prototyp vs. des neuen Octopus 600.

Methoden: Es wurde an beiden Augen von 20 Patienten mit einem primär chronischen Offenwinkelglaukom das 30°-Gesichtsfeld mittels Flimmerperimetrie (dynamische Strategie) an den Perimetern Pulsar und Octopus 600 (Haag-Streit) untersucht. Die Auswertung erfolgte anhand des mittleren Defekts (mean deviation = MD) und der Defekttiefe (square root of lost variance = sLV).

Ergebnisse: Im t-Test für verbundene Stichproben ergab die Pulsar-Perimetrie signifikant höhere MD-Werte verglichen mit der Octopus-600-Perimetrie: rechtes Auge MD 4,8 ± 3,6 src vs. 1,7 ± 2,9 src, p = 0,005; linkes Auge MD 3,9 ± 3,6 src vs. 1,4 ± 2,8 src, p = 0,018; beide Augen MD 4,35 ± 3,62 src vs. 1,55 ± 2,80 src, p = 0,002. Auch die sLV-Werte waren am Pulsar-Perimeter signifikant höher als am Octopus-600-Perimeter: rechtes Auge sLV 3,6 ± 1,6 src vs. 2,3 ± 1,3 src, p = 0,006; linkes Auge sLV 3,2 ± 0,8 src vs. 2,0 ± 0,8 src, p < 0,0001; beide Augen 3,37 ± 1,28 src vs. 2,12 ± 1,05 src, p < 0,0001. Die Signifikanzen blieben auch nach Bonferoni-Holm-Korrektur bestehen.

Schlussfolgerung: Die Untersuchungsergebnisse der Flimmerperimeter sind nicht vergleichbar, weil ein signifikanter Unterschied der MD und sLV vorliegt. Ursächlich sind unterschiedliche Leuchtdichten, Hintergrundhelligkeiten und Farbtemperaturen der Perimeter.

Abstract

Background: Analysis of the comparison of flicker perimetry with the prototype Pulsar and the new Octopus 600.

Methods: Both eyes of 20 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were studied with 30° visual field flimmer perimetry (dynamic strategy) at the perimeters Pulsar and Octopus 600 (Haag-Streit). The evaluation was based on the mean defect (MD = mean deviation) and the defect depth (square root of lost variance = sLV).

Results: In the t test for paired samples, the Pulsar perimetry showed significantly higher values than the Octopus 600 perimetry: right eye MD 4.8 ± 3.6 src vs. 1.7 ± 2.9 src, p = 0.005; left eye MD 3.9 ± 3.6 src v. 1.4 ± 2.8 src, p = 0.018; both eyes MD 4.35 ± 3.62 src vs. 1.55 ± 2.80 src, p = 0.002. The sLV values with the Pulsar perimetry were significantly higher than the values with the Octopus 600 perimetry: right eye sLV 3.6 ± 1.6 vs. 2.3 ± 1.3 src, p = 0.006; left eye sLV 3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 2.0 ± 0.8 src, p < 0.0001; both eyes sLV 3.37 ± 1.28 src vs. 2.12 ± 1.05 src, p < 0.0001. The significances even persisted after the Bonferroni-Holm correction.

Conclusion: The investigation results of flicker perimetry are not comparable, because there is a significant difference in MD and sLV. This mainly due to different light intensities, background brightness and varying colour scalings of the perimetric device.

Schlüsselwörter

Glaukom - Flimmerperimetrie - Pulsar-Perimeter - Octopus-600-Perimeter

Key words

glaucoma - flicker perimetry - Pulsar perimeter - Octopus 600 perimeter
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Swanson WH, Sun H, Lee BB. et al. Reponses of primate retinal ganglion cells to perimetric stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 764-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Johnson CA. The Glenn A. Fry Award Lecture. Early losses of visual function in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 1995; 72: 359-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bartz-Schmidt KU, Thuman G, Jonescu-Cuypers CP. et al. Quantitative morphologic and functional evaluation of the optic nerve head in chronic open-angle glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 1999; 44 (Suppl. 01) S41-S53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F. et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 2242-2250
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green WR. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. III. Quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1982; 100: 135-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Johnson CA. Selective versus nonselective losses in glaucoma. J Glaucoma 1994; 3 (Suppl. 01) S32-S44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Livingstone MS, Hubel DH. Segregation of form, colour, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception. Science 1988; 240: 740-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sample PA, Madrid ME, Weinreb RN. Evidence for a variety of functional defects in glaucoma suspect eyes. J Glaucoma 1994; 3 (Suppl. 01) S5-S18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gonzalvo Ibáñez FJ, Fernández Tirado FJ, Almárcegui Lafita C. et al. [Predictive value of the pattern-electroretinogram in glaucoma]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2001; 76: 485-491
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Vidal-Fernández A, García Feijoó J, García Sánchez J. Pulsar Perimetry: a new Procedure for early Glaucoma Evaluation. Preliminary Findings. In: Henson DB, Wall M. eds. Perimetry Update 2002/2003. The Hague: Kugler Publications; 2004: 199-205
    Google Scholar
  • 11 González de la Rosa M, González-Hernández M. [Pulsar perimetry. A review and new results]. Ophthalmologe 2013; 110: 107-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 González-Hernández M, Fernández-Vidal A, García-Feijoó J, González de la Rosa M. Perimetric Measurement of Contrast Sensitivity Functions. In: Henson DB, Wall M. eds. Perimetry Update 2002/2003. The Hague: Kugler Publications; 2004: 345-352
    Google Scholar
  • 13 González de la Rosa M, González-Hernández M, Diaz-Alemán T. Linear regression analysis of the cumulative defect curve by sectors and other criteria of glaucomatous visual field progression. Eur J Ophthalmol 2009; 19: 416-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 González-Hernández M, Abreu A, Sánchez M, González de la Rosa M. Combined spatial, contrast and temporal Function Perimetry in early Glaucoma and ocular Hypertension. In: Henson DB, Wall M. eds. Perimetry Update 2002/2003. The Hague: Kugler Publications; 2003: 247
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Vidal-Fernández A, García Feijoó J, González-Hernández M. et al. Primeros hallazgos con perimetría Pulsar en pacientes hipertensos oculares. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2002; 77: 321-326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 González-Hernández M, García-Feijoó J, Sánchez Méndez M. et al. Combined spatial, contrast and temporal functions perimetry in mild glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol 2004; 14: 514-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 González de la Rosa M, Méndez Hernández C, Pérez Hernández JR, García-Feijoó J. TOP strategy and PULSAR T30W perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. In: Reece SM. ed. Focus on Glaucoma Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.; 2005: 117-172
    Google Scholar
  • 18 González-de-la-Rosa M, González-Hernández M, Aguilar-Estévez J. et al. Capacidad diagnóstica del HRT-IIy de las perimetrías TOP, PULSAR y FDT en pacientes sospechosos de sufrir glaucoma. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2007; 82: 413-422
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sampaolesi R. The Glaucomas. Vol. I. Pediatric Glaucomas. Berlin: Springer; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C. et al. Non-conventional perimetric methods in the detection of early glaucomatous functional damage. Eye (Lond) 2010; 24: 835-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dannheim F. Conventional (Octopus G1X) and flicker fusion perimetry (Pulsar) in glaucoma: a clinical comparison. 17th International Perimetric Society Meeting, Portland, Oregon, USA, July 12–15, 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zeppieri M, Brusini P, Parisi L. et al. Pulsar perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 149: 102-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 González de la Rosa M. Pulsar perimetry in the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 152: 500-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vidal-Fernández A, García Feijoó J, González-Hernández M. et al. [Initial findings with pulsar perimetry in patients with ocular hypertension]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2002; 77: 321-326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Göbel K, Erb C. Spezifität und Sensitivität der Flimmerperimetrie mit dem Pulsar im Vergleich zur Weiß-Weiß-Perimetrie bei Glaukompatienten. Vortrag auf der 109. Tagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft Berlin: 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Göbel K, Erb C. Spezifität und Sensitivität der Flimmerperimetrie mit dem Pulsar. Ophthalmologe 2013; 110: 141-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 González-Hernández M, González de la Rosa M, Rodríguez de la Vega R. et al. Long-term fluctuation of standard automatic perimetry, pulsar perimetry and frequency-doubling technology in early glaucoma diagnosis. Ophthalmic Res 2007; 39: 338-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zulauf M, Castelberg CA, Wild JM. The learning effect with the Pulsar perimeter in normals, ocular hypertensives and glaucoma. 9th International OCTOPUS Symposium. October 29–November 1, 2008 Bern, Schweiz:
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Prokosch-Willing V, Hoffmann EM, Hömberg L. et al. Korrelation der Nervenfaserschichtdicke gemessen mit SD-OCT mit der Pulsarperimetrie im Vergleich zur Weiß-Weiß Perimetrie in der Glaukomfrüherkennung. Postersitzung auf dem 113. DOG-Kongress 02.10.2015 Berlin, Deutschland:
    PubMedGoogle Scholar