Examination of The Visual Field Change Results using The Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer and The Octopus Visual Field Analyzer in Early Primary Open Angle Glaucoma.
- Author:
Woon Bong JWA
1
;
Woo Chan PARK
;
Sae Heun RHO
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Dong-A University, Pusan, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Bebie curve;
General reduction of sensitivity;
Global index;
Humphrey visual field analyzer;
Octopus visual field analyzer
- MeSH:
Diagnosis;
Glaucoma;
Glaucoma, Open-Angle*;
Octopodiformes*;
Visual Fields*
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
1995;36(9):1536-1540
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer and The Octopus Visual Field Analyzer in Early Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Visual field measurements are useful tool not only for diagnosis but also for management ealuation of early glaucoma. To know the relationship between the results of visual field which were performed by the Humphrey and the Octopus, the 25 disc data which have shown the general reduction of sensitivity on two continuous separate sessions in Humphrey viual field analyzer were transmitted into the Peridata Standard Printout Mode of GIX program on the Octopus 1-2-3. We compared the aspect of Bebie curve of Octopus 1-2-3 and the difference of the global indices between Humphrey and Octopus in the basically input data of age related standard sensitivity of visual field. The general reduction of sensitivity in Humphrey visual field analyzer showed the sensitivity loss in Bebie curve of Octopus 1-2-3(p<5%). In the statistical analysis of Global indices between the two field analyzers there were no differences in the MD and PSD(p>0.05) but were difference the CPSD and SF(p<0.05). In the comparison of the correlation on global indices between the two field analysis. MD and PSD were closely correlated r=0.657, PSD r=0.697, p<0.001), CPSD and SF were statistically correlated(p<0.001) but had lower correlation coefficients(CPSD r=0.478, SF r=0.389). Thus we conclude that there are little differences between the results of two field analyzers.
