Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00008369-200701000-00009.
|
Author: | MIDENA, E. 1,2; RADIN, P. P. 1; CONVENTO, E. 1; CAVARZERAN, F. 1
|
Institution: | (1)Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova (2)G.B. Bietti Eye Foundation - IRCCS, Roma - Italy
|
Title: | Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold.[Article]
|
Source: | European Journal of Ophthalmology. 17(1):63-68, January/February 2007.
|
Abstract: | Purpose. To evaluate if retinal sensitivity threshold obtained with an automatic fundus perimeter may be compared with a standard perimeter retinal threshold.
Methods. Automatic full-threshold fundus perimetry (microperimetry) of the macular area (10[degrees] grid, 37 stimulated points) was quantified with a new automatic fundus perimeter (MP1 microperimeter) in nine normal subjects (18 eyes). Retinal threshold was also quantified using an identical grid projected with a standard Octopus 101 perimeter.
Results. Mean threshold registered by MP1 microperimeter was 19.7+/-0.8 dB (range 16-20 dB; 4.38+/-0.96 asb, range 4-10 asb) versus 33.1+/-1.7 dB (range 27-38 dB; 0.53+/-0.22 asb, range 0.16-2 asb) obtained with Octopus perimeter. Mean SD of intraindividual variation was 0.74 dB in MP1 and 1.51 dB in Octopus. No statistically significant differences were documented between right and left eye with both instruments (p=0.64). No reliable mathematical relationship between retinal thresholds could be obtained with the two perimeters.
Conclusions. Fundus perimetry is a precise, functional fundus-related technique which allows threshold determination at selected retinal points even if fixation is unstable and visual acuity is low. This is beyond the possibility of any static standard perimetry. Normal threshold values obtained with MP1 automatic microperimeter cannot be currently compared with those obtained with standard Octopus perimeter. (Eur J Ophthalmol 2007; 17: 63-8)
(C) 2007 Wichtig Editore
|
Author Keywords: | Fundus perimetry; MP1 microperimeter; Normal values; Octopus 101 perimeter; Static perimetry.
|
References: | 1. Hazel CA, Petre KL, Armstrong RA, Benson MT, Frost NA. Visual function and subjective quality of life compared in subjects with acquired macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1309-14.
2. McClure ME, Hart PM, Jackson A, Stevenson MR. Macular degeneration: do conventional measurements of impaired visual function equate with visual disability? Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 244-50.
3. Timberlake G, Mainster M, Webb R, et al. Retinal localization of scotomata by scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1982; 22: 91-7.
4. Van de Velde FJ, Jalkh AE. Microperimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope: a new technique for correlating retinal sensitivity with anatomy. Chibret Int J Ophthalmol 1992; 9: 36-46.
5. Sunness JS, Bressler NM, Maguire MC. Scanning laser ophthalmoscope analysis of the pattern of visual loss in age-related geographic atrophy of the macula. Am J Ophthalmol 1995; 119: 143-51.
6. Sunness JS, Schuchard RA, Shan N, Rubin GS, Dagnelie G, Haselwood DM. Landmark-driven fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: 1863-4.
7. Fujii GY, Jr de Juan E, Sunness JS, Humayum MS, Pieramici DJ, Chang TS. Patient selection for macular translocation surgery using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 2002; 109: 1737-44.
8. Fujii GY, Jr de Juan E, Humayun MS, Sunness JS, Chang TS, Rossi JV. Characteristics of visual loss by scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry in eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 136: 1067-78.
9. Midena E, Radin PP, Pilotto E, Ghirlando A, Convento E, Varano M. Fixation pattern and macular sensitivity in eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. A microperimetry study. Semin Ophthalmol 2004; 19: 55-61.
10. Midena E, Radin PP, Pilotto E, et al. Fixation pattern and macular sensitivity in eyes with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration: a microperimetry study. Semin Ophthalmol 2004; 19: 55-61.
11. Rohrschneider K, Sprinter C, Bultmann S, et al. Microperimetry- comparison between the microperimeter 1 and scanning laser ophthalmoscope fundus perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 139: 125-34.
12. Vujosevic S, Midena E, Pilotto E, Radin PP, Chiesa L, Cavarzeran F. Diabetic macular edema: correlation between microperimetry and optical coherence tomography findings. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 3044-51.
13. Tezel TH, Del Priore LV, Flowers BE, et al. Correlation between scanning laser ophthalmoscope, microperimetry and anatomic abnormalities in patients with subfoveal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1829-36.
14. Andersen N. Scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry compared with Octopus perimetry in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1996; 74: 135-9.
15. Oshima Y, Harino S, Tano Y. Scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetric assessment in patients with successful laser treatment for juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularization. Retina 1998; 18: 109-17.
16. Schmidt-Erfurth UM, Elsner H, Terai N, Benecke A, Dahmen G, Michels SM. Effects of verteporfin therapy on central visual field function. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 931-9.
17. Rohrschneider K, Becker M, Kruse FE, Fendrich T, Volcker HE. Stability of fixation: results of fundus controlled examination using the scanner ophthalmoscope. German J Ophthalmol 1995; 4: 197-202.
18. Rohrschneider K, Becker M, Kruse FE, Fendrich T, Volcker HE. Static fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope with an automated threshold strategy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1995; 233: 743-9.
19. Springer C, Bultmann S, Volcker HE, Rohrschneider K. Fundus perimetry with the microperimeter 1 in normal individuals. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 848-54.
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Articles.
|
Journal Subset: | Clinical Medicine.
|
ISSN: | 1120-6721
|
NLM Journal Code: | bjg, 9110772
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|