European journal of ophthalmology · 2018
Compass fundus automated perimetry.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Fogagnolo Paolo, Digiuni Maurizio, Montesano Giovanni, Rui Chiara, Morales Marco, Rossetti Luca
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Compass (CenterVue, Padova, Italy) is a fundus automated perimeter which has been introduced in the clinical practice for glaucoma management in 2014. The aim of the article is to review Compass literature, comparing its performances against Humphrey Field Analyzer (Zeiss Humphrey Systems, Dublin, CA, USA).
RESULTS: Analyses on both normal and glaucoma subjects agree on the fact that Humphrey Field Analyzer and Compass are interchangeable, as the difference of their global indices is largely inferior than test -retest variability for Humphrey Field Analyzer. Compass also enables interesting opportunities for the assessment of morphology, and the integration between morphology and function on the same device.
CONCLUSION: Visual field testing by standard automated perimetry is limited by a series of intrinsic factors related to the psychophysical nature of the examination; recent papers suggest that gaze tracking is closely related to visual field reliability. Compass, thanks to a retinal tracker and to the active dislocation of stimuli to compensate for eye movements, is able to provide visual fields unaffected by fixation instability. Also, the instrument is a true colour, confocal retinoscope and obtains high-quality 60° × 60° photos of the central retina and stereo-photos details of the optic nerve. Overlapping the image of the retina to field sensitivity may be useful in ascertaining the impact of comorbidities. In addition, the recent introduction of stereoscopic photography may be very useful for better clinical examination.
RESULTS: Analyses on both normal and glaucoma subjects agree on the fact that Humphrey Field Analyzer and Compass are interchangeable, as the difference of their global indices is largely inferior than test -retest variability for Humphrey Field Analyzer. Compass also enables interesting opportunities for the assessment of morphology, and the integration between morphology and function on the same device.
CONCLUSION: Visual field testing by standard automated perimetry is limited by a series of intrinsic factors related to the psychophysical nature of the examination; recent papers suggest that gaze tracking is closely related to visual field reliability. Compass, thanks to a retinal tracker and to the active dislocation of stimuli to compensate for eye movements, is able to provide visual fields unaffected by fixation instability. Also, the instrument is a true colour, confocal retinoscope and obtains high-quality 60° × 60° photos of the central retina and stereo-photos details of the optic nerve. Overlapping the image of the retina to field sensitivity may be useful in ascertaining the impact of comorbidities. In addition, the recent introduction of stereoscopic photography may be very useful for better clinical examination.