MedElevator
Войти в исследования Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
Comparison of virtual reality-based portable perimetry and conventional perimetry in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bozhöyük Gülsüm G, Kızıltunç Pınar B, Atilla Huban
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare a newly developed virtual reality-based perimeter (Oculera visual field analyzer) with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).
DESIGN: A cross-sectional study.
METHODS: In this study, 30 eyes of 15 IIH patients were randomly tested with HFA (24-2, SITA Standard) and Oculera (24-2, Oculera Interactive) on the same visit. Test durations, global indices [visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD)], and false negative and positive user responses were compared. Spearman correlation was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Correlation analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between the measurements of the two devices in terms of the global indices (VFI, MD, and PSD) and test duration (r = 0.361, P = 0.050; r = 0.395, P = 0.031; r = 0.408, P = 0.025; and r = 0.363, P = 0.049, respectively). The Oculera was within an acceptable range for 83.3% of eyes, considering the MD reproducibility of 1.5-4 dB for HFA. No significant difference was found between the devices in false positive and negative responses ( P = 0.098 and P = 0.395, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Standard automated perimetry is the gold standard for detecting visual field defects, but it is costly and requires prolonged attention and stable fixation. The results of the Oculera, produced with virtual reality technology, were found to be consistent with those of the HFA, and its much lower cost and portability suggest that it has the potential to be an alternative to conventional perimeters.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional study.
METHODS: In this study, 30 eyes of 15 IIH patients were randomly tested with HFA (24-2, SITA Standard) and Oculera (24-2, Oculera Interactive) on the same visit. Test durations, global indices [visual field index (VFI), mean deviation (MD), and pattern standard deviation (PSD)], and false negative and positive user responses were compared. Spearman correlation was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Correlation analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between the measurements of the two devices in terms of the global indices (VFI, MD, and PSD) and test duration (r = 0.361, P = 0.050; r = 0.395, P = 0.031; r = 0.408, P = 0.025; and r = 0.363, P = 0.049, respectively). The Oculera was within an acceptable range for 83.3% of eyes, considering the MD reproducibility of 1.5-4 dB for HFA. No significant difference was found between the devices in false positive and negative responses ( P = 0.098 and P = 0.395, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Standard automated perimetry is the gold standard for detecting visual field defects, but it is costly and requires prolonged attention and stable fixation. The results of the Oculera, produced with virtual reality technology, were found to be consistent with those of the HFA, and its much lower cost and portability suggest that it has the potential to be an alternative to conventional perimeters.