Comparative Analysis of the Humphrey Static Perimetry and the Goldmann Kinetic Perimetry: Application of the Humphrey Static Perimetry to Visual Disability Evaluation.
10.3341/jkos.2013.54.12.1907
- Author:
Jin Hee SHIN
1
;
Song Hee PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. scheye@schmc.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Goldmann kinetic perimetry;
Humphrey static perimetry;
Visual field score
- MeSH:
American Medical Association;
Disability Evaluation*;
Hemianopsia;
Korea;
Methods;
Visual Field Tests*;
Visual Fields
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2013;54(12):1907-1917
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: In the evaluation of visual field defect, Goldmann kinetic perimetry is the preferred method. However, in many cases, Humphrey static perimetry is performed for visual disability evaluation in Korea. In the present study we investigated the correlation between Goldmann kinetic perimetry and Humphrey static perimetry for disability evaluation using visual field score (VFS). METHODS: This study included 126 eyes, classified into the following groups: 60 eyes, normal group; 11 eyes, contraction of central visual field group; 42 eyes, irregular visual field group; 13 eyes, hemianopsia group. All subjects were examined with Goldmann kinetic perimetry and Humphrey static perimetry. We studied the correlation of the VFS between Goldmann kinetic perimetry and Humphrey static perimetry according to the Korean Academy of Medical Science Guides for Impairment Evaluation (KAMS Guides) and American Medical Association Guides for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). RESULTS: Regarding contraction of central visual field group, Goldmann VFS, Humphrey VFS and extended Humphery VFS showed no statistical significance (AMA: p = 0.50, p = 0.30, KMAS: p = 0.36, p = 0.18. respectively). In the irregular visual field and hemianopsia groups, Goldmann VFS and Humphrey VFS showed statistical significance (AMA: p = 0.00, p = 0.00, KMAS: p = 0.00, p = 0.00. respectively). Goldmann VFS and extended Humphrey VFS showed no statistical significance (AMA: p = 0.13, p = 0.12, KMAS: p = 0.08, p = 0.99. respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The contraction of central visual field based on Humphrey static perimetry can be applied to visual disability evaluation. However, in the majority of cases, there is a difference between the two tests and Goldmann kinetic perimetry should be used first in the evaluation of visual field disability evaluation.
