Comparison of the Normal Visual Fields Between the Goldmann and Humphrey Kinetic Perimetries.
10.3341/jkos.2009.50.6.904
- Author:
Song Ee CHUNG
1
;
Sung Jin LEE
;
Kyung Seek CHOI
;
Song Hee PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Goldmann perimetry;
Humphrey automated perimetry;
Kinetic visual field
- MeSH:
Disability Evaluation;
Eye;
Visual Field Tests;
Visual Fields
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2009;50(6):904-910
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To show Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry can be substituted for Goldmann perimetry, which has been used in the field of disability evaluation field, the differences of normal visual fields between two perimetries were evaluated. METHODS: Goldmann and Humphrey automated kinetic perimetries were performed simultaneously in 70 eyes of 35 normal healthy Koreans who had no specific ophthalmologic disease at 12 meridians; 0degrees, 30degrees, 60degrees, 90degrees, 120degrees, 150degrees, 180degrees, 210degrees, 240degrees, 270degrees, 300degrees, and 330degrees. The mean values of field in each case were compared. In addition, the corrected values were obtained through the calculation of the difference in the two maximal fields. RESULTS: The visual fields of Humphrey and Goldmann kinetic perimetries showed a similar oval shape, but the fields of Goldmann were statistically significantly wider than the Humphrey fields. As the values of Humphrey were compared with the original data of Goldmann, all values of the visual field were narrow. CONCLUSIONS: The visual fields by Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry were smaller than those by Goldmann perimetry. Therefore, if Humphrey kinetic perimetry is used for the evaluation of visual disability, the visual field should be evaluated after the correction.
