Comparison of Humphrey Field Analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss
Authors:
Hiroyasu Goukon aff001; Kazunori Hirasawa aff002; Masayuki Kasahara aff002; Kazuhiro Matsumura aff002; Nobuyuki Shoji aff002
Authors place of work:
Graduate School of Medical Science, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, Japan
aff001; Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, Japan
aff002; Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University College London, Institute of ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
aff003
Published in the journal:
PLoS ONE 14(11)
Category:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224711
Summary
The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the results of a visual field (VF) test for patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. These patients exhibit fixation loss (FL) rates >20% with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA); however, actual fixation stabilizes when a head-mounted perimeter (imo) is used. This device is able to adjust the stimulus presentation point by tracking eye movements. We subjected 54 eyes of 54 patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL to the HFA 30–2 or 24–2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm -Standard protocol. All patients also underwent the imo 30–2 or 24–2 Ambient Interactive Zipper Estimated Sequential Testing protocol after HFA measurement. We compared HFA and imo reliability indices [including false-positive (FP) responses, false-negative (FN) responses, and FL rate], global indices [including mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and pattern standard deviation (PSD)], and retinal sensitivity for each test point. There were no significant differences in MD, VFI, and PSD between HFA and imo, and these measures were strongly correlated (r > 0.96, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in FP and FN between both devices, while FL measured with HFA (27.5%) was significantly reduced when measured with imo (13.2%) (p < 0.01). There was no correlation in FL and FN between both devices, and a weak correlation for FP (r = 0.29, p = 0.04). At each test point, retinal sensitivity averaged 1.7 dB higher with HFA, compared with imo (p < 0.01). There was no significant variability in global indices in patients with pseudo-FL. The FP response rate might have influenced measures of FL in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL.
Keywords:
glaucoma – Eyes – Visual acuity – Measurement equipment – Research validity – Fatigue – Eye movements – Blindness
Introduction
The Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA) is a standard automated perimetry device currently in worldwide use, used to detect and monitor patients with suspected visual field (VF) damage. Although the reliability of VF results is important when ophthalmologists evaluate glaucoma progression, results can also be influenced by patients’ subjective responses. The reliability of VF results measured with HFA is calculated according to three indices including the fixation loss (FL) rate, false-positive (FP) response rate, and the false-negative (FN) response rate. A reliability criterion for FL is 20%, FP is 15%, and FL is 33%, as determined by the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm-Standard (SITA-Standard) [1].
VF measures retinal sensitivity at a given location while fixing the gaze on a central point. Fixation monitoring during VF measurement is important [2–4]. Previous studies reported that actual eye movements during VF measurement, recorded with an HFA gaze tracking system, were related to the reproducibility of results [5,6], and structure–function relationships in patients with glaucoma [7]. There are a number of reports about the relationships between the VF results and eye movements during VF measurement [4,8–21].
Apart from the actual eye movements that occur during measurement, clinicians occasionally encounter cases of pseudo-FL. Here, patients express stable fixation on a monitor; however, the FL rate is >20% even when the Mariotte blind spot is set to the proper location for that patient. Very few reports describe VF in patients with pseudo-FL because the eye movements must be controlled during VF measurement to obtain accurate results. Previous studies reported that, in patients with glaucoma, eye movements within 2 degrees were demonstrated in approximately 70% of the overall fixation time [5,6]. This same phenomenon was additionally observed in well-trained healthy young participants [22].
The imo (CREWT Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) is a new, commercially available head-mounted perimeter [23]. The imo can measure VF in nearly all the same positions as HFA. This perimeter allows for real-time automatic gaze tracking by monitoring pupillary movements. With imo, we can also present stimuli in adjusted test points, determined in accordance with eye movements. A previous study found that imo exhibited similar VF sensitivity as the HFA [23]. In theory, imo allows for accurate measurement of VF without the unwanted effects of eye movements during the VF task. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze VF measurements obtained using the imo in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL.
Methods
This study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, and all participants provided written informed consent after the Institutional Review Board of Kitasato University Hospital (no. B16–101) approved the study.
Fifty-seven eyes of 57 patients with glaucoma, all of whom visited the Kitasato University Hospital glaucoma outpatient clinic between May 2016 and September 2016 were subjected to VF measurements. In addition to glaucoma, all patients were diagnosed with pseudo-FL, as per the latest HFA 24–2 or 30–2 SITA-Standards.
Diagnosis of pseudo-FL was based on observed expression of >20% FL rate, even after rechecking the Mariotte blind spot at least once during measurement. Stable fixation was demonstrated in a monitor with HFA. Before VF measurement, all patients received comprehensive ophthalmic examinations, including noncycloplegic refraction testing, visual acuity testing at 5 meters using a Landolt ring chart, intraocular pressure measurement, and slit-lamp and fundus examination by a glaucoma specialist (MK, KM, or NS). We included patients who were 20–70 years old, with a best-corrected decimal visual acuity of 0.8 (logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution [LogMAR] 0.1) or better, spherical power within ±6 diopter and cylindrical power < 1.5 diopter and FP measured with HFA was <15%. We excluded patients with tracking failure on imo.
Head-mounted perimeter “imo”
In brief, the head-mounted perimeter imo consists of the main perimeter unit, a user control tablet, and a patient response button [23]. The imo is equipped with two separate sets of optical systems and pupil-monitoring systems for the right and left eyes. Therefore, the imo can independently present targets, or carry out pupil monitoring, for either eye. Using a full high-definition transmissive light emitting diode and high-intensity light emitting diode backlights, imo can display a test target under the same test conditions as the HFA. The imo has an automatic eye-tracking system that follows eye movement from the fixation point and corrects the location of the target presentation. The test pattern used for imo is compatible with the 24–2 and 30–2 test pattern in HFA. imo uses the AIZE (Ambient Interactive Zipper Estimated Sequential Testing) measurement strategy during modified Zipper Estimated Sequential Testing. With AIZE, which is an original imo measurement strategy, thresholds are determined using Bayesian inference and the maximum likelihood method. The system triggers one reply in the periphery and displays a simulated object while the patient interacts with neighboring checkpoints in order to determine retina sensitivity thresholds. Other detailed features of the imo are described in a previous report [23]. The measurement conditions for imo and HFA that were used in the current study are shown in Table 1.
HFA and imo were performed on the same day, with all patients undergoing imo after a break. Reliability indices including FL, FP, and FN rate and global indices including mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were compared between HFA and imo. Differences in retinal sensitivity at each test point were also calculated.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software packages SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Japan, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for between-group comparisons. Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman analyses were used to compare HFA parameters with the corresponding imo parameters.
Results
Out of 57 eyes, we excluded 3 eyes because of tracking failure on imo. Finally, 54 eyes of 54 patients with glaucoma were analyzed. Participants’ demographics and ocular characteristics are summarized in Table 2.
Fig 1 shows retinal sensitivity measures, as determined by HFA and imo. Retinal sensitivity at each HFA test point was significantly lower than values obtained with imo at 2 points. The retinal sensitivities at each test point averaged 1–2 dB higher with HFA than with imo.
Table 3 presents comparisons of reliability and global indices between HFA and imo. For the reliability indices, there was a significant difference in the FL rate between HFA (27.5%) and imo (13.2%) (p < 0.01); however, there was no significant difference in FP and FN.
Fig 2 shows the scatter plot and Bland–Altman analysis of reliability indices measured with HFA and imo. A positive weak correlation in FP was found between HFA and imo (r = 0.29, p = 0.04), while there was no significant correlation in FL and FN (Fig 2A–2C). For the Bland–Altman analysis, FL and FN demonstrated a fixed bias (p < 0.01), and a proportional bias was demonstrated for all reliability indices (p < 0.01, Fig 2D–2F).
For the global indices, there were no significant differences between HFA and imo for MD, VFI, and PSD (Table 3). Fig 3 shows the result of the scatter plot and Bland–Altman analysis in global indices measured with HFA and imo. Strong correlation was demonstrated in MD (r = 0 .98, p < 0.01), VFI (r = 0.98, p < 0.01), and PSD (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) between HFA and imo (Fig 3A–3C). For the Bland–Altman analysis, there was no fixed bias between HFA and imo in any global index; whereas, proportional bias was demonstrated for each global index (p < 0.01, Fig 3D–3F).
Fig 4 shows the result of scatter plot and Bland–Altman analysis of VF sensitivity at each test point, as measured with HFA and imo. Strong correlation was demonstrated between HFA and imo (r = 0.86, p < 0.01) (Fig 4A). For the Bland-Altman analysis, both fixed and proportional biases were also demonstrated in VF sensitivity at each test point between HFA and imo (p < 0.01, Fig 4B).
Discussion
We evaluated VF in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL using imo. We found that both the global indices (MD, VFI, and PSD) and retinal sensitivities were strongly correlated for HFA and imo at each test point. There were no significant differences in global indices between either parameter, while retinal sensitivity at each test point averaged 1.7 dB higher for HFA, compared with imo. There were large-scale agreements in reliability indices (FL, FP, and FN) between HFA and imo, and there was a significant difference in FL between the two perimeters. A positive weak correlation was found for FP.
FL measured with HFA (27.5%) was significantly reduced when measured by imo (13.2%). FL rates are calculated using the Heijl–Krakau method for both devices. The frequency of stimulus presentation on the Mariotte blind spot was set to 5% of the number of total stimulus presentations [1]. However, the number of total stimulus presentations could differ between the two devices because different test strategies were used for HFA (SITA-Standard) and imo (AIZE). With imo, when slight eye movements occurred during VF measurement, the device compensated for stimulus presentation on the Mariotte blind spot using an automatic tracking system. During HFA, the participant can hear the motor sound when each stimulus is presented. In contrast, there are no sounds during imo measurement. These reasons may explain why FL was decreased for imo.
The positive weak correlation was found for FP. A previous study reported that FP affected test–retest variability at each test point or MD [6]. FP is calculated in HFA as the ratio of the number of responses within 180 to 200 msec against each stimulus presentation [24]. This cut-off value is based on the average response time against the stimulus presentation [25]. In contrast, for imo, FP is calculated as the ratio of the number of responses against the stimulus, which is 9 dB dimmer than the threshold of the test location (already defined) (imo instruction manual). A high FP rate means that the number of responses is large even though they were not actually seen. If a patient kept looking at the fixation point during the test, he or she should not respond during stimulus presentation on the Mariotte blind spot. However, the rate of FL could be high even though the participant kept looking at the fixation target. A previous study about the effects of induced FP during testing on VF found that as the induced FP rate increased, so too did FL [26]. Given that all patients in this study demonstrated pseudo-FL, the FP responses might have been affected.
Global indices and retinal sensitivity measures were strongly correlated between HFA and imo at each test point. However, retinal sensitivity at each test point was averaged 1.7 dB higher with HFA than with imo. Matsumoto et al. reported that mean sensitivity was highly correlated between HFA and imo (r = 0.94–0.96) [23]. In the current study, the MD demonstrated similar findings (r = 0.98). Matsumoto et al. also revealed that there was no significant difference in the mean sensitivity value between HFA and imo. This contradiction may have occurred because of the order of examination. In this study, each patient underwent imo measures after HFA. Kelly et al. reported that the sensitivity decreased significantly by 0.13 dB at the second testing secondary to fatigue [27]. Although we were careful to provide sufficient breaks to the patients between the two measurement sessions, fatigue might have affected the sensitivity measures at each test point. Additionally, the possibility of a learning effect cannot be excluded. All participants received imo for the first time, but we performed a quick demonstration before taking actual measurements. A previous study about learning effects during automated static perimetry found that sensitivity improved with the second measurement by approximately 0.3–5.0 dB in patients with glaucoma [28] and 0.6–1.3 dB in healthy participants [29]. The difference of approximately 1.7 dB between HFA and imo measures may have been influenced by fatigue and/or learning effects.
The current study had some limitations. Our study cohort was rather small. Fixation on the monitor was stable; however, it is possible that the line of sight deviated from time to time. Measurements taken by imo were always performed after HFA, patients had no prior exposure to imo, and we cannot rule out a learning effect. Finally, imo having been monocular measurement under the both eyes opening and the effect of pupil diameter due to shielding.
In conclusion, global indices did not significantly vary between HFA and imo and there were strong correlations in these parameters in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL. However, reliability index variability was large between the HFA and imo. FP response might have influenced the high FL responses in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-FL.
Supporting information
S1 File [xlsx]
Supplementary data of this study.
Zdroje
1. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1999.
2. McMillan TA, Stewart WC, Hunt HH. Association of reliability with reproducibility of the glaucomatous visual field. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1992; 70:665–670. 1471493PMC14714936
3. Katz J, Sommer A. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss. The effect of patient reliability. Ophthalmology. 1990; 97(8):1032–1037. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32467-3 2402414
4. Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988; 106:1252–1254. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1988.01060140412043 3046588
5. Ishiyama Y, Murata H, Mayama C, Asaoka R. An objective evaluation of gaze tracking in Humphrey perimetry and the relation with the reproducibility of visual fields: a pilot study in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55(12):8149–8152. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-15541 25389198
6. Ishiyama Y, Murata H, Asaoka R. The Usefulness of Gaze Tracking as an Index of Visual Field Reliability in Glaucoma Patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56(11):6233–6236. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-17661 26431476
7. Ishiyama Y, Murata H, Hirasawa H, Asaoka R. Estimating the Usefulness of Humphrey Perimetry Gaze Tracking for Evaluating Structure-Function Relationship in Glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56(13):7801–7805. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-17988 26650899
8. Sanabria O, Feuer WJ, Anderson DR. Psudo-loss of fixation in Automated Perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98(1):76–78. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(91)32338-8 2023737
9. Nelson-Quigg JM, Twelker JD, Jonson CA. Response Properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989; 107:1612–1615. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070020690029 2818281
10. Birt CM, Shin DH, Samudrala V, Hughes BA, Kim C, Lee D. Analysis of Reliability Indices from Humphrey Visual Field Tests in an Urban Glaucoma Population. Ophthalmology.1997; 104:1126–1130. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(97)30173-0 9224465
11. Bickler-Bluth M, Trick GL, Kolker AE, Cooper DG. Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields; Testing ocular hypertensives. Ophthalmology. 1989; 96:616–619. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(89)32840-5 2748118
12. Hardage L, Stamper RL. Reliability indices for automated visual fields [Letter]. Ophthalmology. 1989; 96:1810. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(89)32650-9 2622625
13. Johnson CA, Nelson-Quigg JM. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1993; 100:269–274. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(93)31660-x 8437837
14. Demirel S, Vingrys AJ. Eye movements during perimetry and the effect that fixational instability has on perimetric outcomes. J Glaucoma. 1994; 3:28–35. 19920549
15. Demirel S, Vingrys AJ. Fixational instability during perimetry and the blindspot monitor. In: Mills RP, ed. Perimetry Update, 1992/1993. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications. 1992:515–520. PMID: 19920549
16. Demirel S, Vingrys AJ. The effect of fixational loss on perimetric thresholds and reliability. In: Mills RP, ed. Perimetry Update, 1992/1993. Amsterdam: Kugler Publications; 1992:521–526.
17. Henson DB, Evans J, Chauhan BC, Lane C. Influence of fixation accuracy on threshold variability in patients with open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996; 37:444–450. 8603850
18. Kramer BC, Musch DC, Niziol LM, Weizer JS. Reliability of simultaneous visual field testing. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119(2):304–307. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.08.021 22115714
19. Katz J, Sommer A. Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991; 98:70–75. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(91)32339-X 2023736
20. Henson DB, Evans J, Chauhan BC, Lane C. Influence of fixation accuracy on threshold variability in patients with open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996; 37(2):444–450. 8603850
21. Asman P, Fingeret M, Robin A, Wild J, Pacey I, Greenfield D, et al. Kinetic and static fixation methods in automated threshold perimetry. J Glaucoma. 1999; 8(5):290–296. 10529927
22. Hirasawa K, Kobayashi K, Shibamoto A, et al. Variability in monocular and binocular fixation during standard automated perimetry. PLoS One 2018;13(11):e0207517. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207517 30462706
23. Matsumoto C, Yamao S, Nomoto H, Takada S, Okuyama S, Kimura S, et al. Visual Field testing with head-mounted perimeter ‘imo’. PLoS One. 2016; 11(8):e0161974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161974 27564382 PMCID:PMC5001626
24. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H. A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997; 75(4):368–375. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00392.x 9374242
25. de Boer RW, van den Berg TJ, Greve EL, de Waal BJ. Concepts for automatic perimetry, as applied to the Scoperimeter, an experimental automatic perimeter. Int Ophthalmol. 1982; 5(3):181–91. doi: 10.1007/bf00149152 7152801
26. Newkirk MR, Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA Algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47(10):4632–4637. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-1598 17003461
27. Kelly SR, Bryan SR, Crabb DP. Does eye examination order for standard automated perimetry matter? Acta Ophthalmol. 2019; 22. doi: 10.1111/aos.14069 30801992
28. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996; 114(1):19–22. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1996.01100130017003 8540846
29. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J. The effect of perimetric experience in normal subjects. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989; 107(1):81–6. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010083032 2642703
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 11
- Řekněte mi, co jíte, a já vám řeknu, jaká je úroveň vaší kognice
- Duševní onemocnění se u teenagerů přenáší v rámci školní třídy
- Od kostiček k lidské kůži. Jak si postavit 3D biotiskárnu?
- Pomohou nám s detekcí karcinomu plic i včely?
- Původní český test ALBA pro odhalení mírných kognitivních deficitů získal certifikaci MZ ČR
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- A daily diary study on maladaptive daydreaming, mind wandering, and sleep disturbances: Examining within-person and between-persons relations
- A 3’ UTR SNP rs885863, a cis-eQTL for the circadian gene VIPR2 and lincRNA 689, is associated with opioid addiction
- A substitution mutation in a conserved domain of mammalian acetate-dependent acetyl CoA synthetase 2 results in destabilized protein and impaired HIF-2 signaling
- Molecular validation of clinical Pantoea isolates identified by MALDI-TOF
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy