Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 6

Assessment of retinal sensitivity using a time-saving strategy in normal individuals

Authors Suzumura H, Yoshikawa K, Mizoue S, Hyodo, Kimura T

Received 1 August 2012

Accepted for publication 2 October 2012

Published 9 November 2012 Volume 2012:6 Pages 1873—1878

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S36595

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3


Hirotaka Suzumura,1 Keiji Yoshikawa,2 Shiro Mizoue,3 Ryoko Hyodo,4 Tairo Kimura5

1Eye Department, Nakano General Hospital, Tokyo, 2Yoshikawa Eye Clinic, Tokyo, 3Department of Ophthalmology, Ehime University, Ehime, 4Eye Department, Minami Matsuyama Hospital, Ehime, 5Ueno Eye Clinic, Tokyo, Japan

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare retinal sensitivities in normal individuals obtained using the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard (SITA-S) on the Humphrey field analyzer with those obtained using the Dynamic strategy on the Octopus.
Methods: Prior to visual field examinations, the background luminance, stimulus size, and exposure time with the Octopus 101 were conformed to the Humphrey field analyzer II settings. Volunteers over 20 years of age without apparent ophthalmic abnormalities were examined with the SITA-S central 30-2 program followed by the Dynamic 32 program. Eye with corrected visual acuity ≥0.8, refraction ≥ −6.0 diopters, and fields with satisfactory levels of reliability in SITA-S and Dynamic were selected.
Results: Sixty-seven eyes from 67 normal individuals of mean age 51.3 ± 16.3 (range 22–76) years satisfied the selection criteria and were analyzed. Mean retinal sensitivity was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher with SITA-S (29.0 ± 2.4 dB) than with Dynamic (26.8 ± 2.1 dB). Changes in retinal sensitivity with increasing age were significantly (P = 0.0003) greater with Dynamic (−0.09 ± 0.04 dB/year; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.10 to −0.08 dB/year) than with SITA-S (−0.07 ± 0.04 dB/year, 95% CI −0.08 to −0.06 dB/year). When classifying the visual field into three areas (central, mid-peripheral, and peripheral), retinal sensitivities with SITA-S were significantly higher in all areas than with Dynamic (P < 0.0001 for all three areas).
Conclusion: Differences in Dynamic and SITA-S strategies may contribute to the differences in retinal sensitivities observed in normal individuals.

Keywords: time-saving strategy, frequency-of-seeing curve, dynamic, Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard, Octopus perimeter, Humphrey field analyzer

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]