Abstract
Aim
To compare kinetic perimetry on the Humphrey 850 and Octopus 900 perimeters for assessment of visual fields, uniocular rotations and fields of binocular single vision.
Methods
Prospective cross section study comparing Humphrey 850 kinetic perimetry to kinetic perimetry using the Octopus 900. Results were compared for both perimeters for the measurement of visual field boundaries, uniocular rotations and fields of binocular single vision in subjects with normal visual function, with comparisons of mean vector extremity values and duration of testing. A visual field boundary overlay was used to assess detection potential of Humphrey 850 kinetic perimetry using I4e and I2e targets in results of known abnormal visual fields.
Results
Fifteen subjects (30 eyes) with normal parameters of visual function underwent dual perimetry assessment. Mean visual field boundaries and ocular rotation extremity values were similar for Humphrey and Octopus kinetic perimetry along horizontal meridians. Measurements for Humphrey perimetry were significantly smaller for superior and inferior visual field and rotations with ceiling effects at approximately 40 and 50 degrees, respectively. Use of visual field boundary overlays for 140 patient results showed high detection of the known abnormal visual field results by the Humphrey 850 perimeter (91.4% with I4e target; 95% with I2e target) but with notable exceptions for peripheral superior visual field defects.
Conclusions
The Humphrey perimeter’s aspheric bowl introduces a ceiling effect for measurements in the superior and inferior visual field at approximately 40 and 50 degrees respectively. This results in potential diagnostic accuracy issues when measuring uniocular rotations, fields of binocular single and visual field boundaries in conditions that specifically impair superior and/or inferior ocular motility (e.g., thyroid eye disease) or visual fields (e.g., chiasmal compression).
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Johnson CA, Nelson-Quigg JM. A prospective 3-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:269–74.
Heijl A, Patella VM. The field analyzer primer. Essenital perimetry. 3rd ed. California: Carl Zeiss Meditec; 2002.
Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock S, Cunliffe IA. Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: Full threshold, FASTPAC and SITA. Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:1152–61.
Cummings MF, van Hof-van Duin J, Mayer DL, Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Visual fields of young children. Behav Brain Res. 1988;29:7–16.
Lepore FE. The preserved temporal crescent: The clinical implications of an ‘endangered' finding. Neurology. 2001;57:1918–21.
Blamires TL, Reeves BC. Vision defects in patients with peri-chiasmal lesions. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73:572–8.
Rowe FJ, Sarkies NJ. Assessment of visual function in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a prospective study. Eye. 1998;12:111–8.
Agrawal S, Mayer DL, Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Visual fields in young children treated with Vigabatrin. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:767–73.
Donahue SP. Perimetry techniques in neuro-ophthalmology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1999;10:420–8.
Rowe FJ, Hanif S. Uniocular and binocular fields of rotation measures: Octopus versus Goldmann. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249:909–19.
Hashimoto S, Matsumoto C, Eura M, Okuyama S, Shimomura Y. Evaluation of kinetic programs in various automated perimeters. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2017;61:299–306.
Haggerty H, Richardson S, Mitchell KW, Dickinson AJ. A modified method for measuring uniocular fields of fixation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:356–62.
Yagasaki T, Oya Y, Maeda M, Tsukui M. Modified method for assessment of the binocular fusional field in patients with suppression. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53:138–44.
ISO: International Standard. Ophthalmic instruments—perimeters. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 1999.
Dersu I, Wiggins MN, Luther A, Harper R, Chacko J. Understanding visual fields, Part I; Goldmann perimetry. J Ophthalmic Med Technol. 2006;2:1–10.
Patel D, Cumberland P, Russell-Eggitt I, Walters B, Rahi J, OPTIC study group. How should we assess reliability of visual field assessment in children?. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:5675.
Ramirez AM, Chaya CJ, Gordon LK, Giaconi JA. A comparison of semiautomated versus manual Goldmann kinetic perimetry in patients with visually significant glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:111–7.
Pineles SL, Volpe NJ, Miller-Ellis E, Galetta SL, Sankar PS, Shindler KS, et al. Automated combined kinetic and static perimetry: an alternative to standard perimetry in patients with neuro-ophthalmic disease and glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:363–9.
Rowe FJ, Rowlands A. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann kinetic visual fields. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:214829.
Rowe FJ, Noonan CP, Manuel M. Comparison of Octopus semi-automated kinetic perimetry and Humphrey peripheral static perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic cases. ISRN Ophthalmol. 2013;2013:753202.
Rowe FJ, Chenye CP, Garcia-Fiñana M, Noonan C, Howard C, Smith J, et al. Detection of visual field loss in pituatary disease: peripheral kinetic versus central static. Neuro-Ophthalmol. 2015;39:116–24.
Hanif S, Rowe FJ, O’Connor A. The comparative analysis of assessment methods for uniocular fields lof fixation. Br Ir Orthopt J. 2009;6:47–51.
Roper-Hall G. Duction measurements in limited rotations. Br Ir Orthopt J. 1975;32:72–6.
Esser J, Melzer I. Comparison of monocular excursion measurements in normals and in patients with motility disorders. Rome, Italy: International Strabismological Association; 1986. p. 285–92.
Steel DHW, Hoh HB, Potts MJ, Harrad RA. Uniocular fields of fixation in thyroid eye disease. Eye. 1995;9:348–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
FR provided oversight for the study and led the writing of the paper. FR, LH, KH, MM, CN contributed to data collection, reviewing the draft paper and approving the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors do not have any commercial or proprietary interest in the Octopus 900 perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer or Haag Streit International and Carl Zeiss Meditec. Haag Streit provided the loan of the Octopus 900 perimeter for the conduct of this research study. Carl Zeiss Meditec provided the loan of the Humphrey 850 perimeter for the conduct of this research study. Haag Streit and Carl Zeiss Meditec had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rowe, F.J., Hepworth, L.R., Hanna, K.L. et al. Accuracy of kinetic perimetry assessment with the Humphrey 850; an exploratory comparative study. Eye 33, 1952–1960 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0520-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0520-1
