Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2013
Comparison of automated and manual perimetry in patients with blepharoptosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Alniemi Saba T, Pang Noelene K, Woog John J, Bradley Elizabeth A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare Goldmann manual perimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry for sensitivity in detecting visual field loss, efficiency, and patient preference.
METHODS: This prospective study compared Goldmann manual perimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry testing techniques in 20 consecutive preoperative blepharoptosis patients with unilateral or bilateral blepharoptosis with a marginal reflex distance of ≤+2.5 mm, no dermatochalasis overhanging the eyelid margin, and no superior visual field defects due to glaucoma, neurologic disease, or other causes. Main outcome measures included efficiency, patient preference, and sensitivity in detecting visual field loss. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to the start of the study.
RESULTS: Goldmann perimetry had significantly shorter examination times (-Δ6.4 minutes, 95% confidence interval: 4.5-8.3, p < 0.001) and was preferred by most patients (70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 techniques in detecting superior visual field loss at 90° meridian.
CONCLUSIONS: Goldmann manual perimetry for assessing visual field loss in blepharoptosis patients is more efficient than Humphrey automated perimetry and is preferred by patients. Both techniques are sensitive in detecting ptosis-related visual field loss.
METHODS: This prospective study compared Goldmann manual perimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry testing techniques in 20 consecutive preoperative blepharoptosis patients with unilateral or bilateral blepharoptosis with a marginal reflex distance of ≤+2.5 mm, no dermatochalasis overhanging the eyelid margin, and no superior visual field defects due to glaucoma, neurologic disease, or other causes. Main outcome measures included efficiency, patient preference, and sensitivity in detecting visual field loss. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to the start of the study.
RESULTS: Goldmann perimetry had significantly shorter examination times (-Δ6.4 minutes, 95% confidence interval: 4.5-8.3, p < 0.001) and was preferred by most patients (70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 techniques in detecting superior visual field loss at 90° meridian.
CONCLUSIONS: Goldmann manual perimetry for assessing visual field loss in blepharoptosis patients is more efficient than Humphrey automated perimetry and is preferred by patients. Both techniques are sensitive in detecting ptosis-related visual field loss.