The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Login
EN
+7 (495) 482-4118
+7 (495) 482-4329
+8 800 250-18-12
  • (toll-free number for subscriptions)
    Mon-Fri from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

  • © 1998-2026
+7 (495) 482-43-29
EN
All journals
Journal
Year
Year
Search result: 0

Erichev V.P.

Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases

Antonov A.A.

Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases

Vitkov A.A.

Research Institute of Eye Diseases

Grigoryan L.A.

Total Vision LLC

Static automated perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Part 2: Research protocol, glaucoma classifications, perimetric defects through the prism of structural-functional correlation

Authors:

Erichev V.P., Antonov A.A., Vitkov A.A., Grigoryan L.A.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2021;137(5‑2): 289‑299

DOI: 10.17116/oftalma2021137052289

Read: 16383 times

Download PDF (RU)
Contact the author
Table of contents

STATIC AUTOMATED PERIMETRY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF GLAUCOMA. PART 2: RESEARCH PROTOCOL, GLAUCOMA CLASSIFICATIONS, PERIMETRIC DEFECTS THROUGH THE PRISM OF STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL CORRELATION
STATIC AUTOMATED PERIMETRY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF GLAUCOMA. PART 2: RESEARCH PROTOCOL, GLAUCOMA CLASSIFICATIONS, PERIMETRIC DEFECTS THROUGH THE PRISM OF STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL CORRELATION

To cite this article:

Erichev VP, Antonov AA, Vitkov AA, Grigoryan LA. Static automated perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Part 2: Research protocol, glaucoma classifications, perimetric defects through the prism of structural-functional correlation. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2021;137(5‑2):289‑299. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma2021137052289

Подписка 2026 Вестник офтальмологии (Russian Annals of Ophthalmology)
МСФ на ЯМ
Использование инфографики авторами научных работ
Close metadata
Recommended articles:
Resu­lts of a 5-year project for the early diagnosis of multiple scle­rosis in first-line blood rela­tives (RADIRS program). S.S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry. 2025;(7-2):28-33
The possibilities of antioxidant neuroretinoprotection in the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2025;(4):49-59
Electrophysiological methods in the diagnosis and moni­toring of glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2025;(4):102-109
The effect of initial conservative hypo­tensive therapy on the outcomes of sele­ctive laser trabeculoplasty in primary open-angle glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2025;(5):16-22
Modern devi­ces for microinvasive glaucoma surgery. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2025;(5):101-108
Modern stra­tegies for early diagnosis of cardiotoxicity caused by chemotherapy. Russian Journal of Preventive Medi­cine. 2025;(11):113-120
Neuroprotective therapy in adva­nced primary open-angle glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2025;(6):75-80
Orga­nization of moni­toring of carriers of pathogenic germline variants asso­ciated with here­ditary tumor syndromes based on a personalized approach. Medi­cal Technologies. Asse­ssment and Choice. 2025;(4):84-90
Stra­tegy for early diagnosis and prevention of pancreatic cancer. Russian Journal of Evidence-Based Gastroenterology. 2025;(4):86-93
Abstract:

Examination of the central visual field is currently required for glaucoma diagnosis. Modern computer perimeters make it possible to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate defects of light sensitivity. Perimetric indices are calculated showing the severity of the defects. This allows the use of perimetric results to create universal classifications of glaucoma. Recently, new perimeter programs based on optical coherence tomography data have appeared. The possibility of personalizing perimeter programs are being tested. This review attempts to systematize data on the capabilities of computer perimeters in assessing functional defects, presents the widely used glaucoma classifications, and describes ways of developing static perimetry programs for earlier diagnosis of glaucoma with respect to structural and functional correlations.

Keywords:

glaucoma
static automated perimetry
structural-functional correlation
perimetric defects
early diagnosis

Authors:

Erichev V.P.

Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases

Antonov A.A.

Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases

Vitkov A.A.

Research Institute of Eye Diseases

Grigoryan L.A.

Total Vision LLC

Received:

02.11.2020

Accepted:

29.01.2021

Close metadata

References:

  1. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, Asman P. Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1989;107(2):204-208.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010210024
  2. Erichev VP, Antonov AA. Clinical perimetry in the diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma. M.: April; 2016. (In Russ.).
  3. Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 1986;224(5):389-392.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02173350
  4. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JR, Weinreb RN. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): I. criteria for glaucomatous visual field loss using standard automated perimetry (SAP) and short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP). American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2002;134(2):177-185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(02)01577-5
  5. Koucheki B, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Patel G, Gaasterland D, Caprioli J. Visual field changes after cataract extraction: the AGIS experience. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2004;138(6):1022-1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2004.08.006
  6. Gardiner SK, Demirel S. Detecting Change Using Standard Global Perimetric Indices in Glaucoma. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;176: 148-156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.013
  7. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, Rossetti L, Bengtsson B, Viswanathan AC, Heijl A. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2008; 92(4):569-573.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2007.135012
  8. Sousa MC, Biteli LG, Dorairaj S, Maslin JS, Leite MT, Prata TS. Suitability of the Visual Field Index according to Glaucoma Severity. Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice. 2015;9(3):65-68.  https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10008-1186
  9. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2008;145(2):343-353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2007.09.038
  10. Casas-Llera P, Rebolleda G, Munoz-Negrete FJ, Arnalich-Montiel F, Perez-Lopez M, Fernandez-Buenaga R. Visual field index rate and event-based glaucoma progression analysis: comparison in a glaucoma population. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2009;93(12):1576-1579. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.158097
  11. Bebie H, Flammer J, Bebie T. The cumulative defect curve: separation of local and diffuse components of visual field damage. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 1989;227(1):9-12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169816
  12. Asman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1992;110(6):812-819.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1992.01080180084033
  13. Asman P, Heijl A. Evaluation of methods for automated Hemifield analysis in perimetry. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1992;110(6):820-826.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1992.01080180092034
  14. Mandava S, Zulauf M, Zeyen T, Caprioli J. An evaluation of clusters in the glaucomatous visual field. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1993;116(6): 684-691.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)73466-x
  15. Naghizadeh F, Hollo G. Detection of early glaucomatous progression with octopus cluster trend analysis. Journal of Glaucoma. 2014;23(5):269-275.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182741c69
  16. Lefrancois A, Valtot F, Barrault O. New diagnosis approaches: our experience with Octopus Field Analysis (OFA V2.2), the new software for analysis of visual field. Journal Francais d’Ophtalmologie. 2009;32(3):160-171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2009.03.005
  17. Visual field digest. A guide to perimetry and the Octopus perimeter. Arefieva YuA, ed. M.: April; 2018. (In Russ.).
  18. Hollo G, Naghizadeh F. Evaluation of Octopus Polar Trend Analysis for detection of glaucomatous progression. European Journal of Ophthalmology. 2014;24(6):862-868.  https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000504
  19. Simakova IL, Sukhinin MV, Serdukova SA. The effectiveness of various methods of computerized perimetry in primary open-angle glaucoma. Part 1. Natsional’nyj zhurnal Glaukoma. 2016;15(1):25-36. (In Russ.).
  20. Simakova IL, Sukhinin MV, Sobolev AF, Serdukova SA. The effectiveness of various methods of computerized perimetry in primary open-angle glaucoma. Part 2. Natsional’nyj zhurnal Glaukoma. 2016;15(2):44-53. (In Russ.).
  21. Brusini P, Johnson CA. Staging functional damage in glaucoma: review of different classification methods. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2007;52(2):156-179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.008
  22. Esterman B. Grid for scoring visual fields. I. Tangent screen. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1967;77(6):780-786.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1967.00980020782012
  23. Esterman B. Grid for scoring visual fields. II. Perimeter. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1968;79(4):400-406.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1968.03850040402007
  24. Quigley HA, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Sommer A. Rate of progression in open-angle glaucoma estimated from cross-sectional prevalence of visual field damage. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1996;122(3):355-363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72062-8
  25. Susanna R, Jr, Vessani RM. Staging glaucoma patient: why and how? The Open Ophthalmology Journal. 2009;3:59-64.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364100903020059
  26. Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, Noecker RJ, Walt JG, Siegartel LR, Evans SJ, Doyle JJ. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006;141(1):24-30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2005.07.044
  27. Investigators A.G.I.S. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study: 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(8):1445-1455.
  28. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(4):653-662.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(99)90147-1
  29. Gollamudi SR, Liao P, Hirsch J. Evaluation of corrected loss variance as a visual field index. II. Corrected loss variance in conjunction with mean defect may identify stages of glaucoma. Ophthalmologica. 1988;197(3):144-150.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000309935
  30. Brusini P. Clinical use of a new method for visual field damage classification in glaucoma. European Journal of Ophthalmology. 1996;6(4):402-407. 
  31. Brusini P, Filacorda S. Enhanced Glaucoma Staging System (GSS 2) for classifying functional damage in glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma. 2006;15(1): 40-46.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ijg.0000195932.48288.97
  32. Kurysheva NI. Perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. M.: Greenlight; 2015. (In Russ.).
  33. Nesterov AP, Bunin AYa. About the new classification of primary glaucoma. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 1977;93(5):38-42. (In Russ.).
  34. Volkov VV. Ocular structural and functional disturbances, typical for open-angle glaucoma, are the basis for the development of its present-day classification. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 2005;121(4):35-39. (In Russ.).
  35. Volkov VV. Isn’t it time to radically modernize Russian glaucoma classification? Glaukoma. Zhurnal NII GB RAMN. 2013;4:5-10. (In Russ.).
  36. Zaporozhets LA, Martynova EB, Levko MA, Malevannaya OA. Computer perimetry indices in glaucoma stage assessment. Natsional’nyj zhurnal Glaukoma. 2019;18(2):38-46. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25700/NJG.2019.02.05
  37. Alekseev VN, Zaporozhets LA. Determining the stage of glaucoma based on analysis of the central visual field. Glaukoma. Zhurnal NII GB RAMN. 2012;2:12-15. (In Russ.).
  38. Serdyukova SA, Simakova IL. Computer perimetry in the diagnosis of primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmologicheskie vedomosti. 2018;11(1): 54-65.  https://doi.org/10.17816/OV11154-65
  39. Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green WR. Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. III. Quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1982;100(1):135-146.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1982.01030030137016
  40. Wang M, Hood DC, Cho JS, Ghadiali Q, De Moraes CG, Zhang X, Ritch R, Liebmann JM. Measurement of local retinal ganglion cell layer thickness in patients with glaucoma using frequency-domain optical coherence tomography. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2009;127(7):875-881.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.145
  41. Garway-Heath DF, Zhu H, Cheng Q, Morgan K, Frost C, Crabb DP, Ho TA, Agiomyrgiannakis Y. Combining optical coherence tomography with visual field data to rapidly detect disease progression in glaucoma: a diagnostic accuracy study. Health Technology Assessment. 2018;22(4):1-106.  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22040
  42. Anton A, Yamagishi N, Zangwill L, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Mapping structural to functional damage in glaucoma with standard automated perimetry and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1998;125(4):436-446.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(99)80183-4
  43. Ekgardt VF, Dorofeev DA. Structural and functional characteristics of patients with simple primary and pseudoexfoliation open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Part 1. Natsional’nyj zhurnal Glaukoma. 2018;17(1): 55-69. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25700/NJG.2018.01.06
  44. Wachtl J, Toteberg-Harms M, Frimmel S, Kniestedt C. A New Glaucoma Severity Score Combining Structural and Functional Defects. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde. 2017;234(4):468-473.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-123725
  45. Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 1990;300(1):5-25.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903000103
  46. Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Quigley HA, Pease ME, Kerrigan DF, Mitchell RS. Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2000;41(3):741-748. 
  47. Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CG, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Glaucomatous damage of the macula. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. 2013; 32:1-21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.08.003
  48. Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Naumann GO. Optic disc, cup and neuroretinal rim size, configuration and correlations in normal eyes. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 1988;29(7):1151-1158.
  49. Jonas JB, Budde WM, Panda-Jonas S. Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Survey of Ophthalmology. 1999;43(4):293-320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6257(98)00049-6
  50. Maupin E, Baudin F, Arnould L, Seydou A, Binquet C, Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher CP. Accuracy of the ISNT rule and its variants for differentiating glaucomatous from normal eyes in a population-based study. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;104(10):1412-1417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315554
  51. Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CG, Odel JG, Greenstein VC, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Initial arcuate defects within the central 10 degrees in glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2011;52(2): 940-946.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5803
  52. De Moraes CG, Hood DC, Thenappan A, Girkin CA, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Liebmann JM. 24-2 Visual Fields Miss Central Defects Shown on 10-2 Tests in Glaucoma Suspects, Ocular Hypertensives, and Early Glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(10):1449-1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.021
  53. Hangai M, Ikeda HO, Akagi T, Yoshimura N. Paracentral scotoma in glaucoma detected by 10-2 but not by 24-2 perimetry. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology. 2014;58(2):188-196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-013-0298-9
  54. Nakanishi H, Akagi T, Suda K, Hasegawa T, Yamada H, Yokota S, Yoshikawa M, Iida Y, Ikeda HO, Morooka S, Ishihara K, Yoshimura N. Clustering of Combined 24-2 and 10-2 Visual Field Grids and their Relationship with Circumpapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2016;57(7):3203-3210. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-18798
  55. Chen S, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Choosing two points to add to the 24-2 pattern to better describe macular visual field damage due to glaucoma. The British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;99(9):1236-1239. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306431
  56. Hood DC, Nguyen M, Ehrlich AC, Raza AS, Sliesoraityte I, De Moraes CG, Ritch R, Schiefer U. A Test of a Model of Glaucomatous Damage of the Macula With High-Density Perimetry: Implications for the Locations of Visual Field Test Points. Translational Vision Science and Technology. 2014; 3(3):5.  https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.3.3.5
  57. Ehrlich AC, Raza AS, Ritch R, Hood DC. Modifying the Conventional Visual Field Test Pattern to Improve the Detection of Early Glaucomatous Defects in the Central 10 degrees. Translational Vision Science and Technology. 2014;3(6):6.  https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.3.6.6
  58. Brandao LM, Monhart M, Schotzau A, Ledolter AA, Palmowski-Wolfe AM. Applying a New Automated Perimetry Pattern Based on the Stimulus Distribution of the Multifocal ERG to Improve Structure-Function Investigation in Glaucoma. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;2017:8780934. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8780934
  59. Ballae Ganeshrao S, Turpin A, McKendrick AM. Sampling the Visual Field Based on Individual Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Profile. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2018;59(2):1066-1074. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21979
  60. Turpin A, Chen S, Sepulveda JA, McKendrick AM. Customizing Structure-Function Displacements in the Macula for Individual Differences. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2015;56(10):5984-5989. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-17384
  61. Ekgardt VF, Dorofeev DA. Spatial contrast sensitivity in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 2020;136(1):25-35. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma202013601125
Contact the author
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

Submit Application

You can become an author of one of our magazines, send a request and we will consider it in during the day.

Name
Phone
E-mail
Message
Login
Registration
E-mail
Password
Forgot Password?

Log in to the site using your account in one of the services

Password recovery
E-mail
Login
Register

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.