Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
Comparative Evaluation of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Visual Field Testing in Glaucoma Patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Weng Peter J, Asrani Sanjay, Wen Joanne C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare virtual reality (VR) perimetry with perimetry conducted using the Humphrey visual field (HVF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted on patients with diagnoses of: ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspect, or glaucoma who had both HVF and VR 24-2 visual field testing performed as a part of their routine eye examination. Results from both devices were compared on: test duration, test preference, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and point-by-point sensitivity.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine eyes were evaluated from 50 patients with a mean age of 72.1 ± 11.8 years. Of the 79 eyes, 8 had ocular hypertension or were glaucoma suspects, 24 had mild glaucoma, 28 had moderate glaucoma, and 19 had severe glaucoma. The average test duration by HVF was significantly greater (HVF: 253 ± 65 sec vs. VR: 122 ± 6 sec, p < 0.001). Strong correlations for both MD (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) and PSD (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) were observed between HVF and VR perimetry. Point-by-point evaluation did not detect systematic differences in sensitivity between HVF and VR perimetry. Of the 48 patients who completed both tests, 41 (85.4%) indicated a preference for VR perimetry and 7 (13.6%) felt neutral between VR perimetry and HVF.
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that results from HVF and VR perimetry may be comparable. While a majority of the patients preferred VR perimetry, additional studies will be necessary to assess whether VR perimetry can serve as a useful adjunct in monitoring glaucoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted on patients with diagnoses of: ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspect, or glaucoma who had both HVF and VR 24-2 visual field testing performed as a part of their routine eye examination. Results from both devices were compared on: test duration, test preference, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and point-by-point sensitivity.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine eyes were evaluated from 50 patients with a mean age of 72.1 ± 11.8 years. Of the 79 eyes, 8 had ocular hypertension or were glaucoma suspects, 24 had mild glaucoma, 28 had moderate glaucoma, and 19 had severe glaucoma. The average test duration by HVF was significantly greater (HVF: 253 ± 65 sec vs. VR: 122 ± 6 sec, p < 0.001). Strong correlations for both MD (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) and PSD (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) were observed between HVF and VR perimetry. Point-by-point evaluation did not detect systematic differences in sensitivity between HVF and VR perimetry. Of the 48 patients who completed both tests, 41 (85.4%) indicated a preference for VR perimetry and 7 (13.6%) felt neutral between VR perimetry and HVF.
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that results from HVF and VR perimetry may be comparable. While a majority of the patients preferred VR perimetry, additional studies will be necessary to assess whether VR perimetry can serve as a useful adjunct in monitoring glaucoma.