Comparison of high-pass resolution perimetry and standard automated perimetry in glaucoma.

Purpose

We sought to ascertain whether high-pass resolution perimetry would provide results comparable to those of standard perimetry.

Methods

Thirty-four eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma, 37 eyes suspected of having glaucoma, and 36 normal control eyes were matched for age and lens density. We controlled for refraction, pupil size, and learning effects. Standard and ring visual fields were obtained with the Humphrey perimeter and the Frisén ring perimeter, respectively. Each test was judged according to the Glaucoma Hemifield Test (a statistical visual field analysis method) to be outside normal limits (abnormal) or not outside normal limits (normal or borderline).

Results

Under these conditions, both tests identified 19 of 34 (56%) glaucoma eyes as outside normal limits. High-pass resolution perimetry determined that 34 of 36 (94%) normal eyes were not outside normal limits; standard perimetry determined that all 36 normal eyes were not outside normal limits. High-pass resolution perimetry determined 12 of 37 (32%) eyes that were glaucoma suspects were outside normal limits; standard perimetry determined three of the 37 (8%) glaucoma suspect eyes were outside normal limits. Overall agreement between the two tests was 65%.

Conclusion

With the Glaucoma Hemifield Test, high-pass resolution perimetry was comparable to standard perimetry in sensitivity and specificity, and identified a slightly higher percentage of patients at risk for glaucoma as abnormal. These results suggest that high-pass resolution perimetry should continue to be explored as an alternative to standard perimetry for the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma.