Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold

Edoardo Midena, P. P. Radin, E. Convento, F. Cavarzeran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

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° 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-68
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume17
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2007

Fingerprint

Octopodiformes
Visual Field Tests
Visual Acuity
Reference Values

Keywords

  • Fundus perimetry
  • MP1 microperimeter
  • Normal values
  • Octopus 101 perimeter
  • Static perimetry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold. / Midena, Edoardo; Radin, P. P.; Convento, E.; Cavarzeran, F.

In: European Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 63-68.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Midena, Edoardo ; Radin, P. P. ; Convento, E. ; Cavarzeran, F. / Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold. In: European Journal of Ophthalmology. 2007 ; Vol. 17, No. 1. pp. 63-68.
@article{7daf11c22cd04e209bb0cd1641841d50,
title = "Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold",
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° 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.",
keywords = "Fundus perimetry, MP1 microperimeter, Normal values, Octopus 101 perimeter, Static perimetry",
author = "Edoardo Midena and Radin, {P. P.} and E. Convento and F. Cavarzeran",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "63--68",
journal = "European Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "1120-6721",
publisher = "Wichtig Publishing",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Macular automatic fundus perimetry threshold versus standard perimetry threshold

AU - Midena, Edoardo

AU - Radin, P. P.

AU - Convento, E.

AU - Cavarzeran, F.

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - 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° 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.

AB - 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° 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.

KW - Fundus perimetry

KW - MP1 microperimeter

KW - Normal values

KW - Octopus 101 perimeter

KW - Static perimetry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34047273755&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34047273755&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 17294384

AN - SCOPUS:34047273755

VL - 17

SP - 63

EP - 68

JO - European Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - European Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 1120-6721

IS - 1

ER -