advertisement
Abstract #106800 Published in IGR 23-3
Personal Computer-Based Visual Field Testing as an Alternative to Standard Automated Perimetry
Khizer MA; Khan TA; Ijaz U; Khan S; Rehmatullah AK; Zahid I; Shah HG; Zahid MA; Sarfaraz H; Khurshid NCureus 2022; 14: e32094
INTRODUCTION: Standard automated perimetry (SAP) is the gold standard of visual field assessment in patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions. Glaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy characterized by damage to the ganglion cell complex with corresponding visual field defects and intraocular pressure (IOP) being the only modifiable ocular risk factor. Recent advances in technology have paved the way for remote screening and monitoring of visual field defects with the aid of a computer or tablet-based software. One such personal computer (PC)-based software is 'Specvis', which has shown promising reliability as compared to SAP. The primary objective of this study was to compare Specvis and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) visual field reports in the graphical domain while secondary objectives were to estimate the ease of use of Specvis in comparison to HFA and comparison of test duration between Specvis and HFA. Materials and methods This was a cross-sectional validation study performed at a tertiary care ophthalmology institute in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Subjects presenting to the outpatient department were recruited based on consecutive sampling technique and were divided into healthy and diseased groups. Basic data collection instrument after informed consent was filled with demographic data, ophthalmic data, disease condition, and attached with analysis reports of both HFA and Specvis for assessment by three senior ophthalmology consultants independently. A total of 218 eyes of 109 subjects were included in this pilot study. SAP was done on the VF 30-2 program using HFA 3. The same patient then performed the visual field assessment on a PC with Specvis installed and settings adjusted to match the VF 30-2 program of HFA as closely as possible. Visual fields of a subject obtained from HFA and Specvis were then coupled and sent to three different senior ophthalmologists. The assessment was done by comparing the greyscale visual field printouts in the graphical domain and scored based on a 5-point Likert scale which were then analyzed for inter-observer reliability. After each test, all subjects were asked to rate the difficulty level of performing the test on HFA and Specvis based on a 5-point Likert scale. The duration of the test performed on HFA and Specvis was also noted for comparison. RESULTS: We observed male preponderance in our study participants (n=128, 58.72%). The majority of the participants were non-diseased (n=170, 77.98%) while advanced glaucoma was the commonest disease in the diseased group (n = 22, 10.09%). The mean age of the participants was 40.71 (SD=15.24). The observations for the HFA test duration had an average of 213.33 seconds (SD=33.49, Min=174.00, Max=314.00) while the Specvis test duration had an average of 267.36 seconds (SD=35.98, Min=228.00, Max=370.00). A significant positive correlation was observed between score 1, score 2, and score 3 given by the three ophthalmologists. A significant negative correlation was observed between ease of using HFA and age, with a correlation of -.28. A significant negative correlation was also observed between ease of using Specvis and age. CONCLUSION: Specvis, a computer-based free open-source software used in our study, can give promising results in diagnosing as well as monitoring the progression of visual field defects. It can act as a significantly cost-effective and readily available bridge between visual field examination by confrontation method and SAP.
Full article
