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

Close metadata

Recommended articles:

Clinical outcomes of laser activation of hydraulic permeability of the sclera in the treatment of advanced glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2023;(6):19-25

The association between myopia and glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(1):93-98

Role of point-by-point light sensitivity in the assessment of glaucoma progression. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(2-2):34-42

Influence of corneal curvature and peripheral thickness on tonometry readings. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(2-2):43-50

Thresholds and variability of retinal light sensitivity in each point of the examined visual field. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(2-2):116-122

Factors affecting the hypotensive effect of selective laser trabeculoplasty in primary open-angle glaucoma. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(2):54-62

Structure of pediatric ophthalmic pathology in Uzbekistan. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(2):97-101

The relationship between intraocular pressure and age-related variations in ocular rigidity. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(3):11-18

Comparative evaluation of transscleral laser exposure in anatomical experiment. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(3):19-26

A case report of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis with mental disturbances manifestation. S.S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry. 2024;(5):142-144

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

ORCID: 0000-0001-6842-7164

Antonov A.A.

Krasnov Research Institute of Eye Diseases

ORCID: 0000-0002-5171-8261

Vitkov A.A.

Research Institute of Eye Diseases

SPIN RSCI: 9512-8645
Scopus AuthorID: 57225138339
ORCID: 0000-0001-7735-9650

Grigoryan L.A.

Total Vision LLC

Received:

02.11.2020

Accepted:

29.01.2021

List of references:

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
Erichev VP, Antonov AA. Clinical perimetry in the diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma. M.: April; 2016. (In Russ.).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Visual field digest. A guide to perimetry and the Octopus perimeter. Arefieva YuA, ed. M.: April; 2018. (In Russ.).
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
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.).
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.).
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
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
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
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
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
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
Investigators A.G.I.S. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study: 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(8):1445-1455.
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
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
Brusini P. Clinical use of a new method for visual field damage classification in glaucoma. European Journal of Ophthalmology. 1996;6(4):402-407.
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
Kurysheva NI. Perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucomatous optic neuropathy. M.: Greenlight; 2015. (In Russ.).
Nesterov AP, Bunin AYa. About the new classification of primary glaucoma. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 1977;93(5):38-42. (In Russ.).
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.).
Volkov VV. Isn’t it time to radically modernize Russian glaucoma classification? Glaukoma. Zhurnal NII GB RAMN. 2013;4:5-10. (In Russ.).
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
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.).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Close metadata