Comparing a Head-Mounted Smartphone Visual Field Analyzer to Standard Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma: A Prospective Study.

PRCIS

Wang et al compare an FDA-registered head-mounted smartphone device (PalmScan VF2000) with standard automated perimetry (SAP) in glaucoma patients and find that the head-mounted device may not fully recapitulate SAP testing.

PURPOSE

This study prospectively compared visual field testing using the PalmScan VF2000 Visual Field Analyzer, a head-mounted smartphone device, with standard automated perimetry (SAP).

METHODS

Patients with glaucoma undergoing Humphrey Field Analyzer SAP testing were asked to complete in-office PalmScan testing using a Samsung S5 smartphone in a virtual reality-style headset. Glaucoma severity was defined as SAP mean deviation (MD) >-6 dB for mild, between -6 and -12 dB for moderate, and <-12 dB for severe. Global parameters MD and pattern SD from PalmScan and SAP were compared using t -tests and Bland-Altman analyses. Bland-Altmann analyses of PalmScan and SAP MD were conducted for the superonasal, superotemporal, inferonasal, and inferotemporal visual field quadrants. The repeatability of PalmScan was assessed using Spearman's correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (51 eyes) completed both SAP and PalmScan testing and met the criteria for analysis. Compared with SAP, global MD and pattern SD measurements from PalmScan differed by an average of +0.62±0.26 dB (range: -3.25 to +4.60 dB) and -1.00±0.24 dB (range: -6.03 to +2.77 dB), respectively, while MD scores from individual visual field quadrants differed by as much as -6.58 to +11.43 dB. The agreement between PalmScan and SAP in classifying glaucoma severity was 86.3% across all eyes. PalmScan and SAP identified the same quadrant as having the worst visual field defect in 66.7% of eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advantages in cost and accessibility, the PalmScan head-mounted perimetry device may not be able to fully recapitulate SAP testing.