Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM:

This study aimed to compare central visual sensitivity under monocular and binocular conditions in patients with glaucoma using the new imo static perimetry.

METHODS:

Fifty-one consecutive eyes of 51 patients with open-angle glaucoma who were affected with at least one significant point in the central 10° were examined in this cross-sectional study. Monocular and binocular random single-eye tests were performed using the imo perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser (HFA) 24-2 and 10-2 tests. The eyes were assigned to 'better' and 'worse' categories based on the visual acuity and central visual thresholding. Central visual sensitivity results obtained by monocular, binocular random single-eye tests and binocular simultaneous both eye test were compared.

RESULTS:

The average mean deviation with the HFA 24-2 was -5.5 (-1.5, -14.6) dB (median, (IQR)) in the better eyes and -18.0 (-12.9, -23.8) dB in the worse eyes. The mean sensitivity in the central 4 points of the visual field (VF) of the worse eyes was lower when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition. Conversely, this value of the better eyes was greater when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition.

CONCLUSIONS:

The central sensitivity of the better eyes was better and that of the worse eyes poorer with binocular testing than with monocular testing in patients with glaucoma. Although monocular VF testing is still the most straightforward means to monocularly monitor glaucoma at clinical settings, binocular testing, such as provided with imo perimetry, may be a useful clinical tool to predict the effect of VF impairments on a patient's quality of visual life.

• Authors: Tomoyuki Kumagai, Takuhei Shoji, Yuji Yoshikawa, Izumi Mine, Junji Kanno, Hirokazu Ishii, Akane Saito, Sho Ishikawa, Itaru Kimura, Kei Shinoda
• Journal: The British journal of ophthalmology (Br J Ophthalmol) Vol. 104 Issue 11 Pg. 1258-1534 (11 2020) ISSN: 1468-2079 [Electronic] England
• PMID: 32152139 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)
• Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Topics

• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Cross-Sectional Studies
• False Positive Reactions
• Female
• Glaucoma, Open-Angle (diagnosis, physiopathology)
• Humans
• Intraocular Pressure
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Nerve Fibers (pathology)
• Predictive Value of Tests
• Quality of Life
• Retinal Ganglion Cells (pathology)
• Sensitivity and Specificity
• Vision Disorders (physiopathology)
• Vision, Binocular (physiology)
• Vision, Monocular (physiology)
• Visual Acuity (physiology)
• Visual Field Tests (methods)
• Visual Fields (physiology)