首页> 外文期刊>Investigative ophthalmology & visual science >The Standard 24-2 Visual Field Test Can Miss Central Macular Damage Confirmed with 10-2 Visual Fields and Optical Coherence Tomography
【24h】

The Standard 24-2 Visual Field Test Can Miss Central Macular Damage Confirmed with 10-2 Visual Fields and Optical Coherence Tomography

机译:标准的24-2视野测试可以错过经10-2视野和光学相干断层扫描确认的黄斑中央部损伤

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose: Glaucomatous damage to the macula (central ?±10?°) is relatively common and involves both deep local and shallow widespread defects.[1,2] To assess the extent to which macular damage can be missed and/or underestimated by a 24-2 visual field (VF) test, we examined various metrics of the 24-2 VF of patients with confirmed macular damage based upon 10-2 VFs and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods: 108 eyes of 108 patients, either glaucoma suspects (abnormal disc and normal 24-2 VF) or patients with mild damage (abnormal disc and abnormal 24-2 VF with mean deviation (MD) better than -6 dB) were included. In addition to 24-2 VFs, all had 10-2 VFs and frequency-domain OCT cube scans of the macula (3D-OCT2000, Topcon). To be reasonably certain of the presence or absence of macular damage, an eye was considered abnormal only if the OCT macular retinal ganglion cell and/or retinal nerve fiber probability plots showed an abnormality in a region that corresponded to a defect seen on the 10-2 VF total deviation plot. Similarly, an eye was considered healthy only if both the OCT and 10-2 VF plots were normal. The 24-2 VFs of these eyes were assessed with commonly employed criteria: MD (5%), pattern standard deviation (PSD 5%), glaucoma hemifield test outside normal limits (GHT ONL), cluster criteria (CC: 3 neighboring points at 5, 5, and 1% or 5, 2, and 2% or worse within a hemifield) and macular points (points within ?±10?°: one at 1% or 2 at 2%). Results: Based upon the 10-2 VF and OCT plots, the macula was classified as abnormal in 48 eyes and healthy in 28. Of the 48 abnormal eyes, the 24-2 VF incorrectly identified (false negative): 17 (MD), 10 (PSD) 15 (GHT), 10 (PSD or GHT), 13 (CC), and 18 (?±10?° points). Thus, none of the criteria showed a sensitivity better than 79.2%. Additionally, in 4 of the abnormal eyes, the MD of the 10-2 VF exceeded the MD of the 24-2 by more than -3 dB. Of the 28 eyes judged healthy, the 24-2 VF incorrectly identified (false positive): 3 (MD), 6 (PSD), 2 (GHT), 6 (PSD or GHT), 13 (CC), and 5 (?±10?° points). Conclusions: The 24-2 VF missed over 20% of the eyes with macular damage confirmed on 10-2 VF and OCT scans. To reliably detect macular damage, 10-2 VFs (or a modified 24-2)[3] and OCT macular cube scans are essential.br / 1. Hood, Raza et al. (2013) PRER; 2. Hood, Slobodnick et al. (2014) IOVS; 3. Ehrlich et al. (2014) TVST.
机译:目的:对黄斑的青光眼损害(中心点±10°)相对普遍,涉及深部局部和浅部广泛的缺陷。[1,2]评估黄斑损伤可忽略和/或低估的程度在24-2视野(VF)测试中,我们基于10-2 VF和光学相干断层扫描(OCT)检查了已确认黄斑损伤的患者的24-2 VF的各种指标。方法:纳入108例患者的108眼,包括可疑青光眼(椎间盘异常和24-2 VF正常)或轻度损伤(椎间盘异常和24-2 VF异常,平均偏差(MD)优于-6 dB)。除24-2 VF之外,它们均具有10-2 VF和黄斑的频域OCT立方扫描(3D-OCT2000,Topcon)。为了合理地确定是否存在黄斑损害,只有在OCT黄斑视网膜神经节细胞和/或视网膜神经纤维概率图显示出与10- 2 VF总偏差图。同样,只有在OCT和10-2 VF图均正常的情况下,眼睛才被认为是健康的。这些眼的24-2 VF通过常用标准进行评估:MD(<5%),模式标准差(PSD <5%),青光眼半视野检查超出正常范围(GHT ONL),聚类标准(CC:3邻点在半场内为5、5和1%,或5、2和2%或更差)和黄斑点(点在±10°°以内:1%为1%或2%为2%)。结果:根据10-2 VF和OCT图,将黄斑分为48眼异常和28眼健康。在48眼异常中,错误识别出24-2 VF(假阴性):17(MD), 10(PSD)15(GHT),10(PSD或GHT),13(CC)和18(?±10?°点)。因此,没有一个标准显示灵敏度高于79.2%。此外,在四只异常眼中,10-2 VF的MD超过24-24 V的MD超过-3 dB。在判断为健康的28眼中,错误识别出24-2 VF(假阳性):3(MD),6(PSD),2(GHT),6(PSD或GHT),13(CC)和5(? ±10?°点)。结论:24-2 VF错过了超过20%的眼睛,在10-2 VF和OCT扫描中证实了黄斑损伤。为了可靠地检测出黄斑损害,必须进行10-2个VF(或经过修改的24-2)[3]和OCT黄斑立方扫描。
1. Hood,Raza等。 (2013)PRER; 2. Hood,Slobodnick等。 (2014)IOVS; 3. Ehrlich等。 (2014)TVST。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号