Comparison of tendency-oriented perimetry and dynamic strategy in octopus perimetry as a screening tool in a clinical setting: a prospective study.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the results of tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) and a dynamic strategy in octopus perimetry as screening methods in clinical practice.


METHODS
A prospective single centre observational case series was performed.


METHODS
In a newly opened general ophthalmologic practice 89 consecutive patients (171 eyes) with a clinical indication for octopus static perimetry testing (ocular hypertension or suspicious optic nerve cupping) were examined prospectively with TOP and a dynamic strategy. The visual fields were graded by 3 masked observers as normal, borderline or abnormal without any further clinical information.


RESULTS
83% eyes showed the same result for both strategies. In 14% there was a small difference (with one visual field being abnormal or normal, the other being borderline). In only 2.9% of the eyes (5 cases) was there a contradictory result. In 4 out of 5 cases the dynamic visual field was abnormal and TOP was normal. 4 of these cases came back for a second examination. In all 4 the follow-up examination showed a normal second dynamic visual field.


CONCLUSIONS
Octopus static perimetry using a TOP strategy is a fast, patient-friendly and very reliable screening tool for the general ophthalmological practice. We found no false-negative results in our series.
Scherrer
M
M
Augenklinik, UniversitätsSpital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Fleischhauer
J C
JC
Helbig
H
H
Johann Auf der Heide
K
K
Sutter
F K
FK
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009798:Ocular Hypertension / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis*; D009901:Optic Nerve Diseases / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D058609:Visual Field Tests / Q000379:methods*; D014794:Visual Fields