J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2018 Jan;59(1):44-49. 10.3341/jkos.2018.59.1.44.

Comparison of the Variability of Standard Automated Perimetry between Preperimetric Glaucoma Patients and Normal Controls

• Kim SI
• Park HY
• Park CK

• KMID: 2401677
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2018.59.1.44

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the variability of standard automated perimetry (SAP) between patients with preperimetric glaucoma (PPG) and normal controls.
METHODS
This study included 67 eyes, classified into the following groups: 30 eyes, normal controls; and 37 eyes, PPG. All subjects were examined with 24-2 Humphrey static perimetry. The visual field was divided into superonasal, superotemporal, inferonasal, and inferotemporal sectors. The variability of SAP was obtained using the standard deviation of sensitivity points at each location. We compared the variability of SAP between the normal controls and PPG patients.
RESULTS
The variability of SAP was higher in the PPG group compared with the normal control group (p < 0.001). There was also a significant correlation between the variability of SAP and intraocular pressure fluctuations and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (both p < 0.05). The variability of SAP in the PPG group was higher (p < 0.05) in all areas except the inferotemporal sector compared with the normal control group.
CONCLUSIONS
The variability of the SAP increased in PPG patients compared with normal controls, even when the visual field test results were normal.

Keyword

Glaucoma; Perimetry; Progression; Variability

MeSH Terms

Glaucoma*
Humans
Intraocular Pressure
Nerve Fibers
Retinaldehyde
Visual Field Tests*
Visual Fields
Retinaldehyde

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Ganglion cells in preperimetric glaucoma. Small circles represent ganglion cells and large circles represent visual field stimulation. (A) The small circle filled with red color represents sick ganglion cells. (B) The empty space represents dead ganglion cells. The presence of sick or dead ganglion cells leads to a decrease in the action potential for stimulation, which results in a decrease in mean sensitivity.

Reference

1. Mavilio A, Scrimieri F, Errico D. Can variability of pattern ERG signal help to detect retinal ganglion cells dysfunction in glaucomatous eyes. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015:571314.

2. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90:262–267.

3. Tatham AJ, Weinreb RN, Medeiros FA. Strategies for improving early detection of glaucoma: the combined structure-function index. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014; 8:611–621.

4. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Demirel S. The effect of test variability on the structure-function relationship in early glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012; 250:1851–1861.

5. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:2242–2250.

6. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, et al. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:741–748.

7. Gillespie BW, Musch DC, Guire KE, et al. The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44:2613–2620.

8. Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, et al. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:2451–2457.

9. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:648–656.

10. Heijl A, Lindgren A, Lindgren G. Test-retest variability in glaucomatous visual fields. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989; 108:130–135.

11. Werner EB, Petrig B, Krupin T, Bishop KI. Variability of automated visual fields in clinically stable glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989; 30:1083–1089.

12. Osborne NN, Wood JP, Chidlow G, et al. Ganglion cell death in glaucoma: what do we really know? Br J Ophthalmol. 1999; 83:980–986.

13. Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002; 47:158–173.

14. Barde MP, Barde PJ. What to use to express the variability of data: Standard deviation or standard error of mean? Perspect Clin Res. 2012; 3:113.

15. Flammer J, Drance SM, Fankhauser F, Augustiny L. Differential light threshold in automated static perimetry. Factors influencing short-term fluctuation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984; 102:876–879.

16. Hutchings N, Wild JM, Hussey MK, et al. The long-term fluctuation of the visual field in stable glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:3429–3436.

17. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, Brandt JD. Progression of early glaucomatous visual field loss as detected by blue-on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:651–656.

18. Shabana N, Cornilleau Pérès V, Carkeet A, Chew PT. Motion perception in glaucoma patients: a review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003; 48:92–106.

19. Tatham AJ, Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. Strategies to improve early diagnosis in glaucoma. Prog Brain Res. 2015; 221:103–133.

20. Dacey DM, Lee BB. The ‘blue-on’ opponent pathway in primate retina originates from a distinct bistratified ganglion cell type. Nature. 1994; 367:731–735.

21. Sample PA, Medeiros FA, Racette L, et al. Identifying glaucomatous vision loss with visual-function-specific perimetry in the diagnostic innovations in glaucoma study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47:3381–3389.

22. Horn FK, Tornow RP, Jünemann AG, et al. Perimetric measurements with flicker-defined form stimulation in comparison with conventional perimetry and retinal nerve fiber measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55:2317–2323.

23. Lamparter J, Russell RA, Schulze A, et al. Structure-function relationship between FDF, FDT, SAP, and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:7553–7559.

24. Mulak M, Szumny D, Sieja-Bujewska A, Kubrak M. Heidelberg edge perimeter employment in glaucoma diagnosis--preliminary report. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2012; 21:665–670.

25. Pfeiffer N, Bach M. The pattern-electroretinogram in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Ger J Ophthalmol. 1992; 1:35–40.

26. Bode SF, Jehle T, Bach M. Pattern electroretinogram in glaucoma suspects: new findings from a longitudinal study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:4300–4306.

27. Wall M, Woodward KR, Doyle CK, Artes PH. Repeatability of automated perimetry: a comparison between standard automated perimetry with stimulus size III and V, matrix, and motion perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50:974–979.

28. Anderson JS, Lampl I, Gillespie DC, Ferster D. The contribution of noise to contrast invariance of orientation tuning in cat visual cortex. Science. 2000; 290:1968–1972.

29. Levine MW. Variability of responses to sinusoidal modulation. Vis Neurosci. 1994; 11:155–163.

30. Redmond T, Garway-Heath DF, Zlatkova MB, Anderson RS. Sensitivity loss in early glaucoma can be mapped to an enlargement of the area of complete spatial summation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:6540–6548.

31. Leske MC, Wu SY, Hennis A, et al. Risk factors for incident open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:85–93.

32. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:701–713. discussion 829-30.

33. Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, et al. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112:366–375.