Back to Browse Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 7

The role of hemifield sector analysis in multifocal visual evoked potential objective perimetry in the early detection of glaucomatous visual field defects

Authors Mousa MF, Cubbidge RP, Al-Mansouri F, Bener A

Published Date May 2013 Volume 2013:7 Pages 843—858


Received 13 February 2013, Accepted 18 March 2013, Published 8 May 2013

Mohammad F Mousa,1 Robert P Cubbidge,2 Fatima Al-Mansouri,1 Abdulbari Bener3,4

1Department of Ophthalmology, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar; 2School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK; 3Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Hamad Medical Corporation, Department of Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, Doha, Qatar; 4Department Evidence for Population Health Unit, School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a new analysis method of mfVEP objective perimetry in the early detection of glaucomatous visual field defects compared to the gold standard technique.
Methods and patients: Three groups were tested in this study; normal controls (38 eyes), glaucoma patients (36 eyes), and glaucoma suspect patients (38 eyes). All subjects underwent two standard 24-2 visual field tests: one with the Humphrey Field Analyzer and a single mfVEP test in one session. Analysis of the mfVEP results was carried out using the new analysis ­protocol: the hemifield sector analysis protocol.
Results: Analysis of the mfVEP showed that the signal to noise ratio (SNR) difference between superior and inferior hemifields was statistically significant between the three groups (analysis of variance, P < 0.001 with a 95% confidence interval, 2.82, 2.89 for normal group; 2.25, 2.29 for glaucoma suspect group; 1.67, 1.73 for glaucoma group). The difference between superior and inferior hemifield sectors and hemi-rings was statistically significant in 11/11 pair of sectors and hemi-rings in the glaucoma patients group (t-test P < 0.001), statistically significant in 5/11 pairs of sectors and hemi-rings in the glaucoma suspect group (t-test P < 0.01), and only 1/11 pair was statistically significant (t-test P < 0.9). The sensitivity and specificity of the hemifield sector analysis protocol in detecting glaucoma was 97% and 86% respectively and 89% and 79% in glaucoma suspects. These results showed that the new analysis protocol was able to confirm existing visual field defects detected by standard perimetry, was able to differentiate between the three study groups with a clear distinction between normal patients and those with suspected glaucoma, and was able to detect early visual field changes not detected by standard perimetry. In addition, the distinction between normal and glaucoma patients was especially clear and significant using this analysis.
Conclusion: The new hemifield sector analysis protocol used in mfVEP testing can be used to detect glaucomatous visual field defects in both glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients. Using this protocol, it can provide information about focal visual field differences across the horizontal midline, which can be utilized to differentiate between glaucoma and normal subjects. The sensitivity and specificity of the mfVEP test showed very promising results and correlated with other anatomical changes in glaucomatous visual field loss. The intersector analysis protocol can detect early field changes not detected by the standard Humphrey Field Analyzer test.

Keywords: objective perimetry, multifocal VEP, visual field testing, glaucomatous field loss, glaucoma suspect, SAP, HFA

Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML] 

Creative Commons License This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at:

Other articles by this author:

Readers of this article also read:

Temporary diplopia upon hyoscine-N-butyl bromide administration: case report

Migliorini R, Malagola R, Mafrici M, Spena R, Arrico L

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:947-949

Published Date: 23 May 2013

Magnetic resonance imaging findings in Axenfeld–Rieger syndrome

Whitehead MT, Choudhri AF, Salim S

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:911-916

Published Date: 21 May 2013

Accuracy and precision of cap thickness in small incision lenticule extraction

Ozgurhan EB, Agca A, Bozkurt E, Gencer B, Celik U, Cankaya KI, Demirok A, Yilmaz OF

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:923-926

Published Date: 21 May 2013

Efficacy and safety of 0.5% levobupivacaine versus 0.5% bupivacaine for peribulbar anesthesia

Pacella E, Pacella F, Troisi F, Dell'Edera D, Tuchetti P, Lenzi T, Collini S

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:927-932

Published Date: 21 May 2013

Preservative-free tafluprost in the treatment of naive patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Lanzl I, Hamacher T, Rosbach K, Ramez MO, Rothe R, Růžičková E, Karhanová M, Kimmich F

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:901-910

Published Date: 16 May 2013

Membrane tissue on the optic disc may cause macular schisis associated with a glaucomatous optic disc without optic disc pits

Takashina S, Saito W, Noda K, Katai M, Ishida S

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:883-887

Published Date: 13 May 2013

Analysis of macular cone photoreceptors in a case of occult macular dystrophy

Tojo N, Nakamura T, Ozaki H, Oka M, Oiwake T, Hayashi A

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:859-864

Published Date: 8 May 2013

Optic disc size and progression of visual field damage in patients with normal-tension glaucoma

Hayamizu F, Yamazaki Y, Nakagami T, Mizuki K

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:807-813

Published Date: 3 May 2013

Relationship between interblink interval and dopamine

Lemon TI, Shah RD

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:793-794

Published Date: 29 April 2013