Evaluation of application of the SITA Faster visual field strategy in glaucoma patients / 中华实验眼科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To evaluate the clinical application of the SITA faster (SFR) visual field strategy in glaucoma patients.Methods:A diagnostic test was adopted.A total of 72 subjects who visited the Eye and ENT Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University during September 2018 to February 2019 were collected, including 28 normal subjects (56 eyes) and 44 glaucoma patients (86 eyes). The consistency and convenience of visual field tests were evaluated using SITA Standard (SS) and SITA Fast (SF), or SS and SITA Faster (SFR) in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.Test duration, visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD) and the number of defect points with probabilities of <5%, <2%, <1%, and <0.5% in the pattern deviation probability plots were recorded, and tested for difference, correlation and consistency.This study followed the Declaration of Helsinki.Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to their entering the study cohort.The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University.Results:For all of the included subjects, the mean test durations of SF and SFR were (64±13)% and (44±10)% compared to that of SS, respectively.MD and VFI evaluated by SS and SF, or by SS and SFR, showed no significant difference in either the normal subjects or the glaucoma patients (all at P>0.05). Across all included subjects, the positive correlation and consistency of MD and VFI were good ( r=0.99, P<0.01). However, for the results of the probability points in the pattern deviation probability blot, there was no difference among normal subjects, but the correlation and consistency were not good.In the deviation probability blot, there was a greater number of defect points of P<0.5% in glaucoma patients evaluated via SS compared to those evaluated by SFR, and the difference was statistically significant ( Z=-2.28, P=0.02). Apart from this, the number of defect points in glaucoma patients showed no difference between SS and SF, or between SS and SFR, and the correlation and consistency were higher in glaucoma patients than those in the normal subjects. Conclusions:Compared with SF and SS, SFR saves more test time.Except for partial variances in the pattern deviation probability blot, the difference between visual field strategies is relatively small and the results are basically consistent.