Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2005
[Computerized and manual perimetry in patients with severe temporal visual field defects due to suprasellar tumors].
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное 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.
Pereira Andrea, Monteiro Mário Luiz Ribeiro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To study, on Goldmann perimetry, a group of patients with complete temporal hemianopia on Humphrey perimetry (24-2 full threshold test) and to evaluate the percentage of eyes in which computerized perimetry failed to identify a temporal visual field remnants.
METHODS: Nineteen patients with visual field defect by chiasmal compression were prospectively studied with manual and automated perimetry. Twenty-five eyes with complete temporal hemianopia on Humphrey Field Analyzer, 24-2 threshold test were selected and studied with Goldmann perimeter, in order to evaluate the presence of a temporal visual field remnants. According to the result of Goldmann perimetry the eyes were divided into two groups: group 1, with complete temporal hemianopia; group 2, with residual temporal visual field remnants in the periphery. The mean number of mean deviation in the 2 groups was calculated and compared using Student's t test.
RESULTS: Automated perimetry failed to identify a temporal residual visual field in 17 of 25 eyes studied (68%). Mean values of the mean deviation in groups 1 and 2 were respectively -15.43 and -15.93. Statistical analysis did not indicate a significant difference between them.
CONCLUSIONS: Computerized automated Humphrey perimetry using 24-2 threshold test fails to identify temporal visual field remnants in a great percentage of patients with severe chiasmal compression. Analysis of the mean deviation is not helpful in identifying such cases. Patients evaluated on automated perimetry and presenting with a complete temporal hemianopia should be checked for temporal visual field remnants.
METHODS: Nineteen patients with visual field defect by chiasmal compression were prospectively studied with manual and automated perimetry. Twenty-five eyes with complete temporal hemianopia on Humphrey Field Analyzer, 24-2 threshold test were selected and studied with Goldmann perimeter, in order to evaluate the presence of a temporal visual field remnants. According to the result of Goldmann perimetry the eyes were divided into two groups: group 1, with complete temporal hemianopia; group 2, with residual temporal visual field remnants in the periphery. The mean number of mean deviation in the 2 groups was calculated and compared using Student's t test.
RESULTS: Automated perimetry failed to identify a temporal residual visual field in 17 of 25 eyes studied (68%). Mean values of the mean deviation in groups 1 and 2 were respectively -15.43 and -15.93. Statistical analysis did not indicate a significant difference between them.
CONCLUSIONS: Computerized automated Humphrey perimetry using 24-2 threshold test fails to identify temporal visual field remnants in a great percentage of patients with severe chiasmal compression. Analysis of the mean deviation is not helpful in identifying such cases. Patients evaluated on automated perimetry and presenting with a complete temporal hemianopia should be checked for temporal visual field remnants.