Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.

PURPOSE To determine differential light threshold values obtained with the Micro Perimeter 1 (MP1) in healthy volunteers and to correlate them with conventional automated static threshold perimetry using the Octopus 101 Perimeter. DESIGN Prospective comparative observational study. PARTICIPANTS Thirty healthy volunteers. METHODS In 30 eyes of 30 healthy volunteers, static threshold perimetry was performed with the MP1 Micro Perimeter (Nidek Inc., Italy) and the Octopus 101 (Haag-Streit AG, Switzerland) in the same eye in random order. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Differential light threshold values obtained with the MP1 and their difference to differential light threshold values with the Octopus. Differential light sensitivity was compared for 21 matching points in a rectangular test grid using similar examination settings with Goldmann III stimuli, stimulus presentation time of 100 msec, and white background illumination (1.27 cd/m2). RESULTS For the 21 matching locations, mean differential light thresholds with the MP 1 and the Octopus were 15.5+/-0.8 decibels (dB) (range, 13.0-17.1) and 30.2+/-1.2 dB (range, 27.7-32.0), respectively. On the average, the Octopus showed higher threshold values for all test locations than the MP1. The mean difference between both examinations was 14.6+/-1.8 dB for all locations and 14.8+/-1.7 dB excluding the test locations at the blind spot. With a considerably high grade of variation according to the test point location, the difference between the 2 devices varied from 11.4 to 18.3 dB, showing a vertical asymmetry with a larger difference in the lower part of the visual field. Linear regression of the perimetric results for each test point location, excluding the area of the blind spot and the lower line of the test grid, showed significant correlation (r = 0.56; P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS The results show that the MP1 provides reproducible threshold values with a systematic difference compared with standard Octopus perimetry of approximately 15 dB. With a larger difference in the lower part of the visual field, differential light sensitivity values in microperimetry with the MP1 are comparable to the threshold values obtained with the Octopus 101 using a correction factor of 11.4 to 18.3 dB according to stimulus location.

[1]  R A Schuchard,et al.  Landmark-driven fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. , 1995, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  H. Wilhelm,et al.  Gesichtsfeld-Kompendium - Interpretation perimetrischer Befunde Fachübergreifende diagnostische Maßnahmen , 1995 .

[3]  H. Gao,et al.  Aging of the human retina. Differential loss of neurons and retinal pigment epithelial cells. , 1992, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  K. Rohrschneider,et al.  Normal values for fundus perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. , 1998, American journal of ophthalmology.

[5]  R. Leblanc,et al.  Normal visual fields measured with Octopus-Program G1 , 1994, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[6]  R. Murphy,et al.  Assessment of vision in idiopathic macular holes with macular microperimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. , 1993, Ophthalmology.

[7]  G. Lindgren,et al.  Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. , 1987, Archives of ophthalmology.

[8]  J. Flammer,et al.  The distribution of normal values in automated perimetry , 2005, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[9]  Douglas R. Anderson.  Perimetry with and without automation , 1987 .

[10]  G. Rubin,et al.  Fixation patterns and reading rates in eyes with central scotomas from advanced atrophic age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt disease. , 1996, Ophthalmology.

[11]  F. Kruse,et al.  Scanning laser fundus perimetry before laser photocoagulation of well defined choroidal neovascularisation , 1997, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[12]  M. Varano,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF MACULAR PSEUDOHOLES: A 36-MONTH PERIOD OF FOLLOW-UP , 2002, Retina.

[13]  A J Adams,et al.  Evidence for a neural basis of age-related visual field loss in normal observers. , 1989, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  F. Fankhauser,et al.  Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry. Factors influencing short-term fluctuation. , 1984, Archives of ophthalmology.

[15]  F. Kruse,et al.  Static fundus perimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmoscope with an automated threshold strategy , 1995, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[16]  Fumihiko Mori,et al.  Use of scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry in clinically significant macular edema in type 2 diabetes mellitus. , 2002, Japanese journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  G. Lindgren,et al.  The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.

[18]  B J Lachenmayr,et al.  The different effects of aging on normal sensitivity in flicker and light-sense perimetry. , 1994, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  F. Fankhauser.  Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters , 1979, Documenta Ophthalmologica.

[20]  J S Sunness,et al.  Measuring geographic atrophy in advanced age-related macular degeneration. , 1999, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  F. Kruse,et al.  Scanning laser ophthalmoscope fundus perimetry before and after laser photocoagulation for clinically significant diabetic macular edema. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[22]  Robert L. Tomsak,et al.  Perimetry , 1987, Neurology.

[23]  M. V. Andersen.  Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope microperimetry compared with Octopus perimetry in normal subjects. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.