Rapid Campimetry in glaucoma - correspondence with standard perimetry and OCT.
Arcuate scotoma
Glaucoma
Kinetic VF
OCT
Rapid Campimetry
Structure-function correlation
Telemedicine
VF
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2024
25 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
12
06
2024
accepted:
01
10
2024
medline:
26
10
2024
pubmed:
26
10
2024
entrez:
25
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Rapid Campimetry (RC), a kinetic visual field test proved to reliably detect visual field defects within the central 10° degrees, the most crucial part for visual acuity and quality of life, affected even at very early stages of glaucoma, within a short measurement epoch, ~ 1 min. This study aims to further investigate RC correspondence with standard tests in glaucoma, namely standard automated perimetry (SAP) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) within 10° of visual field (VF). For this purpose, we included 41 participants, [21 glaucoma (GLA, mean age: 65.9 ± 12.4; 12 preperimetric eyes and 11 with VF defects) and 20 healthy controls (HC; mean age: 65.0 ± 10.3); 20 eyes]. At first, we compared the rate of detection/exclusion of VF defects in RC vs. SAP. Then, for those with VF defects (11 eyes), we investigated the 68-pointwise correspondence of 10 - 2 layout of RC and SAP. For functional and structural (SF) correspondence, pointwise correspondence of RC, SAP vs. OCT
Identifiants
pubmed: 39455627
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-75037-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-75037-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25400Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
von Graefe, A. Beiträge Zur Pathologie Und Therapie Des Glaucoms. Archiv für Opthalmologie. 15 (3), 108–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02721215 (1869).
doi: 10.1007/BF02721215
Traquair, HM. Clinical detection of early & changes in the visual field. Arch. Ophthalmol. 22(6), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1939.00860120019001 (1939).
doi: 10.1001/archopht.1939.00860120019001
Aulhorn, E. & Harms, H. Early visual field defects in Glaucoma. Published Online September. 4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000389404 (1967).
Drance SM. The early field defects in Glaucoma. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 8 (1), 84–91 (1969).
Drance, S. M., Wheeler, C. & Pattullo, M. The use of static perimetry in the early detection of glaucoma. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2 (4), 249–258 (1967).
pubmed: 6059796
Hood, D. C., Raza, A. S., de Moraes, C. G. V., Liebmann, J. M. & Ritch, R. Glaucomatous damage of the macula. Prog Retin Eye Res. 32, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.08.003 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.08.003
pubmed: 22995953
De Moraes, C. G. et al. 24 – 2 visual fields Miss Central defects shown on 10 – 2 tests in Glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertensives, and early Glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 124 (10), 1449–1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.021 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.021
pubmed: 28551166
Traynis, I. et al. Prevalence and nature of early glaucomatous defects in the Central 10° of the Visual Field. JAMA Ophthalmol. 132 (3), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7656 (2014).
doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7656
pubmed: 24407153
pmcid: 4204644
Curcio, C. A. & Allen, K. A. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J. Comp. Neurol. 300 (1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903000103 (1990).
doi: 10.1002/cne.903000103
pubmed: 2229487
Sullivan-Mee, M. et al. Baseline 10 – 2 visual field loss as a predictor for future Glaucoma progression. J. Glaucoma. 32 (1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002138 (2023).
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002138
pubmed: 36223285
WuDunn, D. et al. Central Visual Field Testing in early Glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 131 (2), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.10.008 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.10.008
pubmed: 38069944
Ng, W. S. et al. The effect of socio-economic deprivation on severity of glaucoma at presentation. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 94 (1), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.153312 (2010).
doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.153312
pubmed: 19628488
Traverso, C. E. et al. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 89 (10), 1245–1249. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.067355 (2005).
doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.067355
pubmed: 16170109
pmcid: 1772870
Fiscella, R. G., Lee, J., Davis, E. J. H. & Walt, J. Cost of illness of glaucoma: a critical and systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 27 (3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200927030-00002 (2009).
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200927030-00002
pubmed: 19354339
Garg, A., Hood, D. C., Pensec, N., Liebmann, J. M. & Blumberg, D. M. Macular Damage, as determined by structure-function staging, is Associated with worse vision-related quality of life in early Glaucoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 194, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.07.011 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.07.011
pubmed: 30053467
Blumberg, D. M. et al. Association between undetected 10 – 2 visual field damage and vision-related quality of life in patients with Glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 135 (7), 742–747. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1396 (2017).
doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1396
pubmed: 28542692
pmcid: 5710200
Murata, H. et al. Identifying areas of the Visual Field important for quality of life in patients with Glaucoma. PLoS ONE. 8 (3), e58695. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058695 (2013).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058695
pubmed: 23520528
pmcid: 3592814
Müller, F. et al. Rapid Campimetry—A novel screening method for Glaucoma diagnosis. J. Clin. Med. 11 (8), 2156. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082156 (2022).
doi: 10.3390/jcm11082156
pubmed: 35456248
pmcid: 9031552
Al-Nosairy KO, Rodenbeck K, Vorholt S, et al. Rapid campimetry - a novel robust kinetic approach for visual field screening in glaucoma. Frontiers in Medicine. 11. Accessed August 2, 2024. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1419147 (2024).
Prum, B. E. et al. Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern(
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.053
pubmed: 26581556
Anderson, D. R. & Patella, V. M. Automated Static Perimetry (Mosby, 1999).
Zhang, T. et al. Variability in human cone Topography assessed by adaptive Optics scanning laser Ophthalmoscopy. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 160 (2), 290–300e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.034 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.034
pubmed: 25935100
pmcid: 4506858
Strasburger, H., Rentschler, I. & Jüttner, M. Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: a review. J. Vis. 11 (5), 13. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.13 (2011).
doi: 10.1167/11.5.13
pubmed: 22207654
pmcid: 11073400
Drasdo, N., Millican, C. L., Katholi, C. R. & Curcio, C. A. The length of Henle fibers in the human retina and a model of ganglion receptive field density in the visual field. Vision. Res. 47 (22), 2901–2911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.01.007 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.01.007
pubmed: 17320143
pmcid: 2077907
Raza, A. S. et al. Retinal ganglion cell layer thickness and local visual field sensitivity in Glaucoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 129 (12), 1529–1536. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.352 (2011).
doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.352
pubmed: 22159673
pmcid: 4331118
Garway-Heath, D. F., Poinoosawmy, D., Fitzke, F. W. & Hitchings, R. A. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 107 (10), 1809–1815. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00284-0 (2000).
doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00284-0
pubmed: 11013178
Jung, K. I., Ryu, H. K., Hong, K. H., Kim, Y. C. & Park, C. K. Simultaneously performed combined 24 – 2 and 10 – 2 visual field tests in glaucoma. Sci. Rep. 11 (1), 1227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80318-w (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80318-w
pubmed: 33441875
pmcid: 7806904
Hood, D. C. & Kardon, R. H. A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 26 (6), 688–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2007.08.001 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2007.08.001
pubmed: 17889587
pmcid: 2110881
Miraftabi, A. et al. Macular SD-OCT outcome measures: comparison of local structure-function relationships and dynamic range. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 57 (11), 4815–4823. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-19648 (2016).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.16-19648
pubmed: 27623336
pmcid: 5024670
Hood, D. C. Relating retinal nerve fiber thickness to behavioral sensitivity in patients with glaucoma: application of a linear model. J. Opt. Soc. Am. Opt. Image Sci. Vis. 24 (5), 1426–1430. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.24.001426 (2007).
doi: 10.1364/josaa.24.001426
Dichtl, A., Jonas, J. B. & Naumann, G. O. H. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in human eyes. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 237 (6), 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004170050264 (1999).
doi: 10.1007/s004170050264
Mwanza, J. C. et al. Residual and dynamic range of retinal nerve Fiber layer thickness in Glaucoma: comparison of three OCT platforms. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 56 (11), 6344–6351. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-17248 (2015).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-17248
pubmed: 26436887
pmcid: 5109982
Bowd, C., Zangwill, L. M., Weinreb, R. N., Medeiros, F. A. & Belghith, A. Estimating Optical Coherence Tomography Structural Measurement floors to improve detection of progression in advanced Glaucoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 175, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.11.010 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.11.010
pubmed: 27914978
Sihota, R., Sony, P., Gupta, V., Dada, T. & Singh, R. Diagnostic capability of Optical Coherence Tomography in evaluating the degree of glaucomatous retinal nerve Fiber damage. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 47 (5), 2006–2010. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-1102 (2006).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-1102
Hood, D. C. et al. Retinal nerve Fiber structure versus visual field function in patients with ischemic Optic Neuropathy. Ophthalmology. 115 (5), 904–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.06.001 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.06.001
pubmed: 17870170
Prabhakaran GT, Al-Nosairy KO, Tempelmann C, Thieme H, Hoffmann MB. Mapping Visual Field Defects With fMRI – Impact of Approach and Experimental Conditions. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 15. Accessed August 5, 2023. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.745886 (2021).
Cohen, J. A coefficient of Agreement for Nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20 (1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 (1960).
doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104
McHugh, M. L. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. (Zagreb). 22 (3), 276–282 (2012).
doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031
pubmed: 23092060
Gardiner, S. K. & Mansberger, S. L. Moving stimulus perimetry: a new functional test for Glaucoma. Transl Vis. Sci. Technol. 11 (10), 9. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.10.9 (2022).
doi: 10.1167/tvst.11.10.9
pubmed: 36201198
pmcid: 9554223
Ong, E. L. et al. Performance of the Moorfields Motion Displacement Test for identifying eyes with Glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 121 (1), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.036 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.036
pubmed: 24139154
Beck, R. W., Bergstrom, T. J. & Lighter, P. R. A clinical comparison of Visual Field Testing with a New Automated Perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann Perimeter. Ophthalmology. 92 (1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(85)34065-4 (1985).
doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(85)34065-4
pubmed: 3974997
Wall, M. & Ketoff, K. M. Random dot motion perimetry in patients with glaucoma and in normal subjects. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 120 (5), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72205-6 (1995).
doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72205-6
pubmed: 7485360
Greenfield, J. A. et al. Virtual reality Oculokinetic Perimetry Test reproducibility and relationship to conventional perimetry and OCT. Ophthalmol. Sci. 2 (1), 100105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xops.2021.100105 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2021.100105
pubmed: 36276927
Medeiros, F. A., Zangwill, L. M., Bowd, C., Mansouri, K. & Weinreb, R. N. The structure and function relationship in glaucoma: implications for detection of progression and measurement of rates of change. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 53 (11), 6939–6946. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-10345 (2012).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10345
pubmed: 22893677
pmcid: 3466074
Tong, J., Phu, J., Alonso-Caneiro, D., Khuu, S. K. & Kalloniatis, M. Clinical evaluations of Macular structure-function concordance with and without Drasdo Displacement. Translational Vis. Sci. Technol. 11 (4), 18. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.4.18 (2022).
doi: 10.1167/tvst.11.4.18
Hirasawa, K. et al. Comparing structure-function relationships based on Drasdo’s and Sjöstrand’s retinal ganglion cell displacement models. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 61 (4), 10. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.61.4.10 (2020).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.61.4.10
Montesano, G., Garway-Heath, D. F. & Crabb, D. P. Letter to the editor: expected improvement in structure–function Agreement with Macular Displacement models. Translational Vis. Sci. Technol. 11 (10), 14. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.10.14 (2022).
doi: 10.1167/tvst.11.10.14
Heijl, A. & Krakau, C. E. An automatic static perimeter, design and pilot study. Acta Ophthalmol. (Copenh). 53 (3), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01161.x (1975).
doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01161.x
pubmed: 1174394