Comparison of Matrix Frequency-Doubling Technology (FDT) Perimetry with the SWEDISH Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) in Mild Glaucoma

Azadeh Doozandeh, Farnoosh Irandoost, Ali Mirzajani, Shahin Yazdani, Mohammad Pakravan, Hamed Esfandiari

Abstract


This study aimed to compare second-generation frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry with standard automated perimetry (SAP) in mild glaucoma. Forty-seven eyes of 47 participants who had mild visual field defect by SAP were included in this study. All participants were examined using SITA 24-2 (SITA-SAP) and matrix 24-2 (Matrix-FDT). The correlations of global indices and the number of defects on pattern deviation (PD) plots were determined. Agreement between two sets regarding the stage of visual field damage was assessed. Pearson’s correlation, intra-cluster comparison, paired t-test, and 95% limit of agreement were calculated using SPSS 24.0. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Although there was no significant difference between global indices, the agreement between the two devices regarding the global indices was weak (the limit of agreement for mean deviation was -6.08 to 6.08 and that for pattern standard deviation was -4.42 to 3.42). The agreement between SITA-SAP and Matrix-FDT regarding the Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) and the number of defective points in each quadrant and staging of the visual field damage was also weak. Because the correlation between SITA-SAP and Matrix-FDT regarding global indices, GHT, number of defective points, and stage of the visual field damage in mild glaucoma is weak, Matrix-FDT cannot be used interchangeably with SITA-SAP in the early stages of glaucoma.

 


References


Sihota R, Tandon R. Parsons' Diseases of the Eye. 20th ed. New Delhi, India: Elsevier; 2007.

Gupta SK, Niranjan DG, Agrawal SS, Srivastava S, Saxena R. Recent advances in pharmacotherapy of glaucoma. Indian J Pharmacol. 2008;40(5):197-208. DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.44151 PMID: 20040958

Jampel HD. Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2001;99:301-17. PMID: 11797316

Heijl A, Patella V. Essential perimetry: the field analyzer primer. Dublin: Carl Zeiss Meditec; 2002.

Turalba AV, Grosskreutz C. A review of current technology used in evaluating visual function in glaucoma. Semin Ophthalmol. 2010;25(5-6):309-16. DOI: 10.3109/08820538.2010.518898 PMID: 210910 17

Iwase A, Tomidokoro A, Araie M, Shirato S, Shimizu H, Kitazawa Y, et al. Performance of frequency-doubling technology perimetry in a population-based prevalence survey of glaucoma: the Tajimi study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(1):27-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.o phtha.2006.06.041 PMID: 17070580

Kelly DH. Nonlinear visual responses to flickering sinusoidal gratings. J Opt Soc Am. 1981;71(9):1051-5. PMID: 7277060

Maddess T, Henry G. Performance of nonlinear visual units in ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Clin Vision Sci. 1992;5:371-3.

Anderson AJ, Johnson CA. Frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16(2):213-25. PMID: 12809159

Johnson CA, Cioffi GA, Van Buskirk EM. Frequency doubling technology perimetry using a 24--2 stimulus presentation pattern. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76(8):571-81. PMID: 10472963

Leeprechanon N, Giangiacomo A, Fontana H, Hoffman D, Caprioli J. Frequency-doubling perimetry: comparison with standard automated perimetry to detect glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(2):263-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.10.033 PMID: 17178091

Fukushima A, Shirakashi M, Yaoeda K, Funaki S, Funaki H, Ofuchi N, et al. Relationship between indices of Humphrey perimetry and Frequency Doubling Technology Perimetry in glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2004;13(2):114-9. PMID: 15097256

Racette L, Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Ng D, Weinreb RN, Sample PA. Diagnostic accuracy of the Matrix 24-2 and original N-30 frequency-doubling technology tests compared with standard automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(3):954-60. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0493 PMID: 18326718

Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76(3):268-72. PMID: 9686835

Chakravarti T. Assessing Precision of Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson Criteria for Staging Early Glaucomatous Damage in an Ocular Hypertension Cohort: A Retrospective Study. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2016. DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000201 PMID: 27213767

Brusini P, Johnson CA. Staging functional damage in glaucoma: review of different classification methods. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(2):156-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.008 PMID: 17355855

Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(5):863-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo. 2003.12.009 PMID: 15126151

Brusini P, Busatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand Suppl. 1998(227):23-4. PMID: 9972331

Artes PH, Hutchison DM, Nicolela MT, LeBlanc RP, Chauhan BC. Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(7):2451-7. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0135 PMID: 15980235

Patel A, Wollstein G, Ishikawa H, Schuman JS. Comparison of visual field defects using matrix perimetry and standard achromatic perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(3):480-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.op htha .2006.08.009 PMID: 17123623

Iester M, Mermoud A, Schnyder C. Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma: correlation with octopus perimeter indices. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(2):288-94. PMID: 10690827

Spry PG, Johnson CA, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(6):1404-10. PMID: 11328758

Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, Higginbotham EJ. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129(3):328-33. PMID: 10704548


Full Text: Full Text PDF

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.