Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 13

Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo®) and Humphrey Field Analyzer

Authors Kimura T, Matsumoto C, Nomoto H

Received 15 October 2018

Accepted for publication 24 January 2019

Published 14 March 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 501—513

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S190995

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser


Video abstract presented by Dr Tairo Kimura

Views: 36

Tairo Kimura,1 Chota Matsumoto,2 Hiroki Nomoto2

1Department of Ophthalmology, Meiikai Ueno Eye Clinic, Tokyo, Japan; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine Osaka-Sayama City, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan

Purpose: The head-mounted automated perimeter imo® is a new portable perimeter that does not require a dark room and can be used to examine patients in any setting. In this study, imo 24plus (1-2) AIZE examinations were compared with previous Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 30-2 (SITA standard) examinations within the same patient.
Patients and methods: imo examinations (either head-mounted [i-H] or fixed [i-F] type) were performed in patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma who had already experienced HFA five or more times. Measurement time and correlations of mean deviation (MD) and visual field index (VFI) values were compared between groups for HFA, i-H, i-F, and imo total (i-T). Fixation loss (FL), false-positive (FP), and false-negative (FN) detection rates were compared. The percentage of binocular random single-eye tests under possible non-occlusion conditions using imo was determined. Mann–Whitney U test was performed, and Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient was calculated.
Results: The inclusion period was July to December 2016. Among 273 subjects (543 eyes), 147 (292 eyes) were tested with i-H type and 126 (251 eyes) with i-F type. Mean MD values for HFA and i-T were −6.1±7.8 and −6.2±7.1 dB, respectively. Mean measurement times for HFA, i-H, i-F, and i-T were 15.23±2.07, 10.47±2.11, 11.04±2.31, and 10.54±2.19 minutes, respectively (P<0.01 for HFA vs i-H/i-F). Total mean measurement time was shorter by 30.8% for i-T vs HFA. Correlation coefficients of MD and VFI were R2>0.81 for HFA vs i-H and i-F.. FP and FN detection rates were significantly higher with i-T than HFA; there was no significant difference in FL. Binocular random single-eye tests were possible in 85% of cases.
Conclusion: imo reduced measurement time by 30.8%. imo VFI and MD values were highly correlated with HFA. As i-F and i-H types produced similar results, imo can be used in accordance with the patient’s situation.

Keywords: visual field, glaucoma, automatic perimetry, mean deviation, visual field index, reliability index

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]