Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 1993 Jun;77(6):332–338. doi: 10.1136/bjo.77.6.332

Clinical evaluation of a multi-fixation campimeter for the detection of glaucomatous visual field loss.

E Mutlukan 1, B E Damato 1, J L Jay 1
PMCID: PMC504525  PMID: 8318478

Abstract

The multi-fixation glaucoma screening chart, which uses the oculokinetic perimetry (OKP) technique, is a hand-held tangent screen with a central black test stimulus on a white background and a series of 26 numbered fixation targets arranged around the stimulus at various locations. When the numbers on the chart are read by the patient from 40 cm distance, the test stimulus passes through the relevant parts of the central visual field which are most vulnerable to glaucomatous damage. The test is positive (that is, abnormal) if at least one fixation number is associated with consistent disappearance of the stimulus. The OKP test was performed in 222 eyes of 126 glaucoma patients (aged 16-91 years) and 186 right eyes of 186 normal individuals (aged 19-86 years) using a 1.5 mm diameter stimulus. A further 144 eyes of 88 glaucoma patients (aged 60-85 years) and 31 right eyes of 31 normal individuals (aged 60-85 years) were tested with a 3 mm diameter stimulus. All eyes were also tested with conventional perimetry and the results of the conventional perimetry were categorised according to the Aulhorn-Karmeyer classification by four ophthalmologists without any knowledge of the OKP results. When the 1.5 mm stimulus was used, a true positive OKP result was obtained in 45% of eyes with relative scotomas, 81% of eyes with small absolute scotomas separate from the blind spot and 100% of eyes with more severe visual field defects.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Full text

PDF
332

Images in this article

333Image
on p.333

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alvarez E., Damato B. E., Jay J. L., McClure E. Comparative evaluation of oculokinetic perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1988 Apr;72(4):258–262. doi: 10.1136/bjo.72.4.258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Batko K. A., Anctil J. L., Anderson D. R. Dethecting glaucomatous damage with the Friedmann analyzer compared with te Goldmann perimeter and evaluation of stereoscopic photographs of the optic disk. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983 Apr;95(4):435–447. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(83)90262-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bengtsson B. The alteration and asymmetry of cup and disc diameters. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1980 Oct;58(5):726–732. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1980.tb06685.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bengtsson B. The variation and covariation of cup and disc diameters. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1976 Dec;54(6):804–818. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1976.tb01801.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickler-Bluth M., Trick G. L., Kolker A. E., Cooper D. G. Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields. Testing ocular hypertensives. Ophthalmology. 1989 May;96(5):616–619. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(89)32840-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Clearkin L., Harcourt B. Referral pattern of true and suspected glaucoma to an adult ophthalmic outpatient clinic. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1983;103(Pt 3):284–287. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Damato B. E., Ahmed J., Allan D., McClure E., Jay J. L. The detection of glaucomatous visual field defects by oculo-kinetic perimetry: which points are best for screening? Eye (Lond) 1989;3(Pt 6):727–731. doi: 10.1038/eye.1989.112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Damato B. E., Chyla J., McClure E., Jay J. L., Allan D. A hand-held OKP chart for the screening of glaucoma: preliminary evaluation. Eye (Lond) 1990;4(Pt 4):632–637. doi: 10.1038/eye.1990.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Damato B. E. Oculokinetic perimetry: a simple visual field test for use in the community. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985 Dec;69(12):927–931. doi: 10.1136/bjo.69.12.927. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Duggan C., Sommer A., Auer C., Burkhard K. Automated differential threshold perimetry for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985 Sep 15;100(3):420–423. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(85)90505-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eddy D. M., Sanders L. E., Eddy J. F. The value of screening for glaucoma with tonometry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1983 Nov-Dec;28(3):194–205. doi: 10.1016/0039-6257(83)90097-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Enger C., Sommer A. Recognizing glaucomatous field loss with the Humphrey STATPAC. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987 Oct;105(10):1355–1357. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1987.01060100057024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Falcão-Reis F., O'Donoghue E., Buceti R., Hitchings R. A., Arden G. B. Peripheral contrast sensitivity in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol. 1990 Dec;74(12):712–716. doi: 10.1136/bjo.74.12.712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Harrison R. J., Wild J. M., Hobley A. J. Referral patterns to an ophthalmic outpatient clinic by general practitioners and ophthalmic opticians and the role of these professionals in screening for ocular disease. BMJ. 1988 Nov 5;297(6657):1162–1167. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6657.1162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Heijl A., Drance S. M. A clinical comparison of three computerized automatic perimeters in the detection of glaucoma defects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981 May;99(5):832–836. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1981.03930010832008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Heijl A., Drance S. M., Douglas G. R. Automatic perimetry (COMPETER). Ability to detect early glaucomatous field defects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1980 Sep;98(9):1560–1563. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1980.01020040412002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hicks B. C., Anderson D. R. Quantitation of glaucomatous visual field defects with the Mark II Friedmann analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983 May;95(5):692–700. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(83)90390-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Jay J. L., Allan D. The benefit of early trabeculectomy versus conventional management in primary open angle glaucoma relative to severity of disease. Eye (Lond) 1989;3(Pt 5):528–535. doi: 10.1038/eye.1989.84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jonas J. B., Fernandez M. C., Naumann G. O. Glaucomatous optic nerve atrophy in small discs with low cup-to-disc ratios. Ophthalmology. 1990 Sep;97(9):1211–1215. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32434-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Keltner J. L., Johnson C. A., Balestrery F. G. Suprathreshold static perimetry. Initial clinical trials with the Fieldmaster automated perimeter. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979 Feb;97(2):260–272. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1979.01020010112003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Klein B. E., Moss S. E., Magli Y. L., Klein R., Johnson J. C., Roth H. Optic disc cupping as clinically estimated from photographs. Ophthalmology. 1987 Nov;94(11):1481–1483. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(87)33265-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mutlukan E., Bradnam M., Keating D., Damato B. E. Visual evoked cortical potentials from transient dark and bright stimuli. Selective 'on' and 'off-pathway' testing? Doc Ophthalmol. 1992;80(2):171–181. doi: 10.1007/BF00161243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mutlukan E., Damato B. E. The dark perimetric stimulus. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992 May;76(5):264–267. doi: 10.1136/bjo.76.5.264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Parrish R. K., 2nd, Schiffman J., Anderson D. R. Static and kinetic visual field testing. Reproducibility in normal volunteers. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984 Oct;102(10):1497–1502. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1984.01040031217021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sommer A., Duggan C., Auer C., Abbey H. Analytic approaches to the interpretation of automated threshold perimetric data for the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1985;83:250–267. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Trobe J. D., Acosta P. C., Shuster J. J., Krischer J. P. An evaluation of the accuracy of community-based perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1980 Nov;90(5):654–660. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)75132-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Tuck M. W., Crick R. P. Efficiency of referral for suspected glaucoma. BMJ. 1991 Apr 27;302(6783):998–1000. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6783.998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wilensky J. T., Joondeph B. C. Variation in visual field measurements with an automated perimeter. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984 Mar;97(3):328–331. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(84)90631-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES