Correlation between the optic disc and results obtained with conventional, high-pass resolution and pattern discrimination perimetry in glaucoma.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether results obtained with two new techniques, high-pass resolution perimetry and pattern discrimination perimetry, correlated better to the appearance of the optic disc than results obtained with conventional automated perimetry in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Our sample consisted of 28 eyes of 28 patients with early glaucomatous field damage who are part of a prospective follow-up study. We used the second of two sets of baseline perimetric examinations separated by 1 week in the analysis. Neuroretinal rim area was calculated by planimetry of stereophotographs of the disc and was correlated to the visual field sensitivity measured with each of the techniques. We found a poor correlation between the disc and field measurements (correlation coefficients; -0.048 for conventional perimetry, 0.111 for high-pass resolution perimetry and -0.315 for pattern discrimination perimetry). Although the correlation appeared to be higher with the newer techniques, the differences were not statistically significant.

Comparison of reliability indices in conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare reliability indices in conventional (Humphrey) and high-pass resolution (Ring) perimetry in healthy subjects followed prospectively at 6-month intervals. METHODS: Of the 146 healthy subjects (mean age, 50.24 years; range, 30-84 years) enrolled in the study, 102 have been tested twice and 71 three times. The authors compared the reliability indices, fixation losses, false-positive rate, and false-negative rate between the two techniques, both cross-sectionally and serially. RESULTS: Fixation losses were slightly higher with high-pass resolution perimetry, whereas false-positive errors were higher with conventional perimetry. False-negative errors were uncommon with either technique. Of 319 fields, 30 (9.4%) conventional and 39 (12.2%) high-pass resolution perimetry fields were unreliable using the current suggested reliability criteria. Nearly all unreliable fields were due to high fixation errors. Using alternative criteria derived from baseline 95th percentile values, unreliable fields were attributed more equally to all three reliability parameters. In subjects tested three times, the reliability indices remained constant. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that healthy subjects have comparable reliability indices when tested with conventional and high-pass resolution perimetry.