Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2025
Acceptance of Novel Perimetry Methods in Germany: Virtual Reality Perimetry and Tablet-based Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schrittenlocher Silvia, Lüke Vincent, Irle Hanne, Weliwitage Jithmi, Lüke Jan Niklas, Kong George, Vingrys Algis J, Lappas Alexandra, Cursiefen Claus, Dietlein Thomas S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptance of innovative perimetry methods such as virtual reality perimetry (VRP) and tablet-based perimetry (TBP) in comparison to conventional hemisphere perimetry (HP) in glaucoma patients for the first time in Germany.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 204 glaucoma patients using the 30 - 2 TOP algorithm (Octopus, Haag-Streit) followed by one of the two new methods: Group 1 (VRP; n = 101) and Group 2 (TBP using the Melbourne Rapid Fields Glaucoma App; n = 103). Subsequently, patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire on their experience with the new examination compared to the conventional examination.
RESULTS: More than three-quarters of patients at 77% in Group 1 (VR) and 89.9% of patients in Group 2 (TBP) found the respective new examination method "easier" or "much easier" than the conventional HP. An overwhelming majority of patients in Group 1 and Group 2 found the new method more comfortable at 86% and 90.9%, respectively. Examination durations were: 2.67 ± 0.98 min for HP, 6.26 ± 1.88 min for VR perimetry, and 4 ± 0.71 min for the tablet method; figures given as means ± standard deviation. Just over half the patients at 51% found HP and VR headset to be similar for duration with 54% preferring the tablet over conventional hemisphere perimetry. By far the most patients in Groups 1 and 2 at 80% and 81.8%, respectively, reported willingness to use the new perimetry method regularly in future follow-up examinations.
CONCLUSION: Most glaucoma patients surveyed consistently responded favourably to VR headset and tablet-based perimetry, preferring these examinations to conventional hemispherical perimetry.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 204 glaucoma patients using the 30 - 2 TOP algorithm (Octopus, Haag-Streit) followed by one of the two new methods: Group 1 (VRP; n = 101) and Group 2 (TBP using the Melbourne Rapid Fields Glaucoma App; n = 103). Subsequently, patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire on their experience with the new examination compared to the conventional examination.
RESULTS: More than three-quarters of patients at 77% in Group 1 (VR) and 89.9% of patients in Group 2 (TBP) found the respective new examination method "easier" or "much easier" than the conventional HP. An overwhelming majority of patients in Group 1 and Group 2 found the new method more comfortable at 86% and 90.9%, respectively. Examination durations were: 2.67 ± 0.98 min for HP, 6.26 ± 1.88 min for VR perimetry, and 4 ± 0.71 min for the tablet method; figures given as means ± standard deviation. Just over half the patients at 51% found HP and VR headset to be similar for duration with 54% preferring the tablet over conventional hemisphere perimetry. By far the most patients in Groups 1 and 2 at 80% and 81.8%, respectively, reported willingness to use the new perimetry method regularly in future follow-up examinations.
CONCLUSION: Most glaucoma patients surveyed consistently responded favourably to VR headset and tablet-based perimetry, preferring these examinations to conventional hemispherical perimetry.