Visual Field in Glaucoma

24,221 views 151 slides May 22, 2016
Slide 1
Slide 1 of 151
Slide 1
1
Slide 2
2
Slide 3
3
Slide 4
4
Slide 5
5
Slide 6
6
Slide 7
7
Slide 8
8
Slide 9
9
Slide 10
10
Slide 11
11
Slide 12
12
Slide 13
13
Slide 14
14
Slide 15
15
Slide 16
16
Slide 17
17
Slide 18
18
Slide 19
19
Slide 20
20
Slide 21
21
Slide 22
22
Slide 23
23
Slide 24
24
Slide 25
25
Slide 26
26
Slide 27
27
Slide 28
28
Slide 29
29
Slide 30
30
Slide 31
31
Slide 32
32
Slide 33
33
Slide 34
34
Slide 35
35
Slide 36
36
Slide 37
37
Slide 38
38
Slide 39
39
Slide 40
40
Slide 41
41
Slide 42
42
Slide 43
43
Slide 44
44
Slide 45
45
Slide 46
46
Slide 47
47
Slide 48
48
Slide 49
49
Slide 50
50
Slide 51
51
Slide 52
52
Slide 53
53
Slide 54
54
Slide 55
55
Slide 56
56
Slide 57
57
Slide 58
58
Slide 59
59
Slide 60
60
Slide 61
61
Slide 62
62
Slide 63
63
Slide 64
64
Slide 65
65
Slide 66
66
Slide 67
67
Slide 68
68
Slide 69
69
Slide 70
70
Slide 71
71
Slide 72
72
Slide 73
73
Slide 74
74
Slide 75
75
Slide 76
76
Slide 77
77
Slide 78
78
Slide 79
79
Slide 80
80
Slide 81
81
Slide 82
82
Slide 83
83
Slide 84
84
Slide 85
85
Slide 86
86
Slide 87
87
Slide 88
88
Slide 89
89
Slide 90
90
Slide 91
91
Slide 92
92
Slide 93
93
Slide 94
94
Slide 95
95
Slide 96
96
Slide 97
97
Slide 98
98
Slide 99
99
Slide 100
100
Slide 101
101
Slide 102
102
Slide 103
103
Slide 104
104
Slide 105
105
Slide 106
106
Slide 107
107
Slide 108
108
Slide 109
109
Slide 110
110
Slide 111
111
Slide 112
112
Slide 113
113
Slide 114
114
Slide 115
115
Slide 116
116
Slide 117
117
Slide 118
118
Slide 119
119
Slide 120
120
Slide 121
121
Slide 122
122
Slide 123
123
Slide 124
124
Slide 125
125
Slide 126
126
Slide 127
127
Slide 128
128
Slide 129
129
Slide 130
130
Slide 131
131
Slide 132
132
Slide 133
133
Slide 134
134
Slide 135
135
Slide 136
136
Slide 137
137
Slide 138
138
Slide 139
139
Slide 140
140
Slide 141
141
Slide 142
142
Slide 143
143
Slide 144
144
Slide 145
145
Slide 146
146
Slide 147
147
Slide 148
148
Slide 149
149
Slide 150
150
Slide 151
151

About This Presentation

Visual Field in Glaucoma


Slide Content

Visual Fields in
Glaucoma

Cesar A. Perez Jr MD DPBO
Philippine Glaucoma Society


Definition of Visual Field
■The visual field is that portion of
the external environment of the
observer wherein the steadily
fixating eye can detect visual
stimuli
International Perimetric Society (1978)

Extent of the Visual Field
Anderson RA. Automated Static Perimetry

Temporal field
Nasal field
60°
90°
70°
60° 30°
Blind spot
Why only the central 

30 degrees?

Visual Field vs Anatomy
Anderson RA. Automated Static Perimetry

Traquair’s Island of Vision

Definition of Perimetry
■Measurement of visual functions of the
eye at topographically defined loci in
the visual field
1

■Measures differential light sensitivity, or
the ability of a subject to distinguish a
stimulus light from background
illumination
2
1.International Perimetric Society (1978)
2.American Academy of Ophthalmology

Clinical Perimetry
■Two major perimetry types
➢Manual kinetic
➢Automated static
(gold standard)

Automated Static Threshold
Perimetry
■Measures the retina's sensitivity to
light at predetermined locations in the
visual field
■While the patient focuses on the point
of fixation, stimuli are presented in
random order at each of the
predetermined locations w/in the
visual field

static achromatic stimulus
(Gold Standard)

Clinical Perimetry
Stimulus size
Size V
Size III (standard)
Blind spot

Apostilbs (Asb)
(luminance)
Humphrey
Decibels (dB)
(sensitivity)
Octopus
Decibels (dB)
0.1 50 40
1 40 30
1000 10 0
10,000 0 -
Clinical Perimetry

Clinical Perimetry
▪Stimulus intensity is varied but w/ fixed
size & duration
➢Determines the minimum intensity at w/c
patient responds to 50% of the time
(threshold)
▪Determined by bracketing - stimulus
intensities moved above & below the
threshold
Threshold strategy

Clinical Perimetry
“Bracketing” reveals the threshold
Infrathreshold (can’t be seen)
Suprathreshold (seen)

Why test the Visual Field?
■Defines state of optic nerve function
■Defines visual impairment
1
■To detect eye diseases (glaucoma,
retinal, neuro-ophtha, etc)
■To monitor an eye disease/visual
impairment
1. Asia Pacific Glaucoma Guidelines (2003-2004)

What is being tested in Perimetry?
■Light sensitivity is measured in
different retinal areas
➢Foveal/central areas more sensitive than
peripheral areas
■Light sensitivity compared to a
normative database derived from
multicenter studies

Interconnecting cells
▪Bipolar
▪Horizontal
▪Amacrine cells

Visual Physiology of the Retina
Light
photoreceptors
RPE
Transmitting cells
▪ Ganglion cells
G G

Humphrey & Octopus
practical
reading
system

Parameters
Reliability
Age Corrected plots
Tests (GHT/Bebie curve)
Indices
Correlate clinically
Evaluate
7 Steps – 5 zones
(PRACTICE)
Humphrey
TM
Octopus
TM

1)P
2)R
3)AC
4)T
5)I
6)C
7)E

3
4
5
12
Humphrey
TM
•5 Zones
•Counter-clockwise
1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests
5)Indices
6)Correlate
clinically
7)Evaluate

1
2
3
4
5
Octopus
TM

•5 Zones
•Clockwise
1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests
5)Indices
6)Correlate
clinically
7)Evaluate

▪ Test strategy
➢ Full threshold, SITA-standard, SITA fast
▪ Region/pattern used
➢ 30-2, 24-2, 10-2
▪ Patient details
➢date of birth, date of VF, pupil size, test
time, VA, correction, eye tested
1.Parameters
Humphrey
TM

Perimetry Programs
■Full Threshold 30-2
■Standard
■18-20 minutes per eye
■4-2-1 staircase with double crossover for
Octopus; 4-2 staircase for Humphrey
■Light stimulus size is standard (Goldmann
Size III)

Full
threshold
Humphrey
TM

SITA Standard
▪Diagnostic sensitivity similar to full
threshold (both 95%)
1

▪Sensitivity, specificity, characterization, &
reliability of determining VF properties > vs
other threshold tests
2-4

▪50% reduction in testing times
➢4 minutes for a normal field
➢8 minutes for a glaucoma field
1.Delgado, et al, Ophthalmology Dec 2002
2.Bengtsson B, et al. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998
3.Bengtsson, B, Heijl. A. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998
4.Budenz DL, et al. Ophthalmology. 2002


Humphrey
TM
SITA -
Standard

■2-6 minutes
➢3 minutes normal field
➢5.5 minutes glaucoma field
■93% sensitivity

vs 95% for SITA
standard
1

For patients : Younger
➢ Restless
➢ “Learning”
1. Delgado, et al, Ophthalmology Dec 2002
SITA Fast

• 24-2 tests 54 points
• 30-2 tests 76 points
24-2 or 30-2?
Humphrey
TM
10-2?
•For advanced
glaucoma
•Tests 68 points
in the central
10 degrees

Humphrey
TM

advanced
glaucoma
30-2
Humphrey
TM

1
2
Humphrey
TM
1)Parameters
2)Reliability

Is the field reliable?
▪false (+): pressing button even w/o
visual stimulus
▪false (-): failure to respond to a
threshold stimulus previously seen at
the same point
▪if > 33% FP or FN, then unreliable
▪if > 20% fixation losses then unreliable

3
12
Humphrey
TM
1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected

Compare total & pattern deviation
3.Age Corrected plots
Humphrey
TM
Zero in on the probability plots

Compare total deviation (TD) & pattern
deviation (PD) probability plots
Humphrey
TM
▪If defect in TD & PD plots look similar
➢Focal field defect
▪Depressed TD w/ a normal PD
➢ Diffuse or generalized field defect

Focal defect
Compare total &
pattern deviation
Humphrey
TM

Humphrey
TM
Generalized defect
Compare total &
pattern deviation

3
4
12
Humphrey
TM
1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests

■Outside normal limits
➢if sensitivities in > 1 of the
5 zones in upper half of
the field are different
(p<0.01) from those in the
corresponding lower half
zones
4.Tests: glaucoma
hemifield test (GHT)
Humphrey
TM

3
4
5
12
Humphrey
TM
1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests
5)Indices

5.Indices (global)
▪MD: mean deviation
▪PSD: pattern standard deviation
▪SF: short-term fluctuation
▪CPSD: corrected PSD
Humphrey
TM

Mean deviation (MD)
▪Average difference between
overall sensitivity of patient and
age-matched controls
▪Indication of generalized defects
or elevation (+ or - 2 dB normal)
▪Good measure of diffuse defects

5.Indices (global)
Humphrey
TM
Mean deviation (MD)
40
0
30
20
10
90 60 30 0 30 60 90
Normal hill of vision
(age corrected)
dB

Pattern standard deviation (PSD)
shape of VF departs from normal age-
corrected field
▪Focal / localized defects
▪Single most useful analysis
▪Beginning VF loss appear earlier in
probability plots vs grayscale
▪Normal value : 0 to 6 dB



Short term fluctuations (SF)
▪ 0-2dB normal
▪ Average between 2 determinations
should be:
➢ < 2dB in normal field
➢ < 3dB in early damage
➢ < 4dB in moderate damage

•Increased fluctuation

▪Pattern Standard Deviation
(PSD) corrected for the SF
▪Better measure of localized
field loss (0-4 dB normal)
Corrected Pattern
Standard deviation (CPSD)
Humphrey
TM
5.Indices (global)

3
4
5
12
Humphrey
TM
1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests
5)Indices
6)Correlate
clinically
6

3
4
5
12
Humphrey
TM
1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests
5)Indices
6)Correlate
clinically
7)Evaluate 6
7

1
1)Parameters
Octopus
TM

▪ Test strategy
➢ Normal, Dynamic, TOP
▪ Pattern/region used
➢ G1, 32, M2, LVC
▪ Patient details
➢ Date of birth, date of VF, pupil size, test
time, VA, correction, eye tested
Octopus
TM

1.Parameters

▪Points positioned in
areas of concern in
glaucoma
➢Accentuates nasal
step
➢Higher resolution in
paracentral area
G1 program
OS
Octopus
TM

1.Parameters - pattern

“Full
Threshold”
Normal
Strategy
Octopus
TM

Octopus
TM

➢excellent
correlation
w/ normal
strategy
▪ Dynamic
▪ TOP
Shorter
strategies:

Perimetry Programs
■Dynamic Program 30-2 (Octopus)
■~ 7 minutes per eye
■Stimulus presentation adapted to
measured threshold value
■Higher sensitivity ! smaller steps (2 dB)
■Lower sensitivity ! larger steps (6-10 dB)
■Single crossover
■Light stimulus size is standard (Goldmann
Size III)

Perimetry Programs
■Tendency Oriented Perimetry (TOP)
Program 30-2
■~ 2-3 minutes per eye
■Screening
■Only 1 test question per location
■Single answer influences the value of 8
neighboring points
■Light stimulus size is standard (Goldmann
Size III)
■Phase 1 only
■No SF (short term fluctuation)

G1 vs 32 pattern
Octopus
TM

▪For detection and/or
f/up of defects in the
central 10
0

➢Neurological
➢Macular
➢Peri-macular
M2 program
0
0
10
0

Octopus
TM

1.Parameters - pattern

M2 program
(central 10
0
)
Octopus
TM

▪Tests sensitivity in
central foveal area
➢Same grid as 32
program
➢End stage glaucoma
➢Goldmann stimulus V
LVC program
0
0
30
0

1.Parameters - pattern
Octopus
TM

LVC program
Octopus
TM

2. Reliability Factor
▪ Ideally < 15
▪ Lower the better
Octopus
TM

1
2
3
Octopus
TM

1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected

Zero in on the probability plots
Octopus
TM

Compare C & CC probability plots
3.Age Corrected plots

Octopus
TM

4.Tests: Bebie curve

▪Quickly assesses defect
characteristics & depth
▪Diffuse vs focal defect
➢Diffuse: curve below & parallel to the
normal curve
➢Focal: steep fall-offs on the right side
of the curve
Octopus
TM

4.Tests: Bebie curve

Diffuse defect: curve below & parallel
to normal curve
Octopus
TM

4.Tests: Bebie curve

Focal defect: steep fall-offs
4.Tests: Bebie curve
Octopus
TM

Octopus
TM

5.Indices (global)

mean sensitivity (MS)
mean deviation (MD) mean defect (MD)
pattern std deviation (PSD) loss variance (LV)
short term fluctuations
(SF)
short term fluctuations
(SF)
corrected pattern standard
deviation (CPSD)
corrected loss variance
(CLV)
Octopus
TM
Humphrey
TM
5.Indices (global)

Visual Field Indices

Normal Values
■Mean Defect ( -2.0 to +2.0 db )
■Loss Variance ( 0 to 6.0 db )
■Short-term Fluctuation ( 0 to 2.0 db )
■Corrected Loss Variance ( 0 to 4.0 db )

1
2
3
4
5
6
Octopus
TM

1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests
5)Indices
6)Correlate
clinically

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Octopus
TM

1)Parameters
2)Reliability
3)Age Corrected
4)Tests
5)Indices
6)Correlate
clinically
7)Evaluate

Is the field defect
glaucomatous?
• Is the defect focal?
• Is the defect diffuse?
STEP 1

Glaucoma defects are
Focal in nature
Diffuse Focal

What kind of a defect is this?

diffuse or focal?
combined diffuse & focal defect

If the defect is Focal
STEP 2:
Is the focal defect glaucomatous?

Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects
(Seagig Glaucoma Guidelines ‘08)
▪Asymmetrical across horizontal meridian*
▪Are located in mid-periphery* (5–25
0

from fixation)
▪Reproducible
▪Not attributable to other pathology
▪Clustered in neighboring test pts (localised)
▪Correlate with optic disc and RNFL
* Applicable to early/moderate cases

Localized patterns of glaucoma
VF defects
▪ Nasal step (earliest)
▪ Paracentral scotoma
▪ Arcuate (Bjerrum) scotoma
➢ Later becoming altitudinal
▪Temporal island
▪ Central island

Superior nasal step

Inferior paracentral scotoma

Arcuate (Bjerrum) scotoma

Superior altitudinal w/
inferior arcuate scotoma

Reproducibilty
■A visual field defect must be real. To be real, it
must be confirmed on repeated exams

1.Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static
Perimetry. 2
nd
Ed. St Louis: Mosby 1999
2.Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical
decisions in glaucoma. St Louis: Mosby
▪What is the minimum criteria for a defect to be possibly glaucoma?
1


▪When do you classify a glaucoma
defects as:
2

➢ Early?
➢ Moderate?
➢ Severe?
Identification & Classification of
a glaucoma defect

Minimum Criteria for glaucoma
defects (1)
▪ ≥ 3 non-edge points w/
p< 5%
▪One point w/ p< 1%
▪Cluster in arcuate area
Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static
Perimetry. 2
nd
Ed. St Louis: Mosby 1999
Pattern
deviation plot

Criteria for glaucoma defects (2)
CPSD or PSD
depressed, 

with p < 5%
Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static
Perimetry. 2
nd
Ed. St Louis: Mosby,1999

Criteria for glaucoma defects (3)
Abnormal GHT
Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static
Perimetry. 2
nd
Ed. St Louis: Mosby 1999

3 minimum criteria for glaucoma
defects
2)CPSD or PSD depressed
w/ p < 5%
3)Abnormal GHT
Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static
Perimetry. 2
nd
Ed. St Louis: Mosby 1999
1) PD plot
a)≥ 3 non-edge points w/
p< 5%
b)1 point w/ p < 1%
c) Cluster in arcuate area

Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical
decisions in glaucoma. St Louis: Mosby
Criteria for Early Glaucoma Defect
▪MD < -6 dB
▪On PD plot, < 25% (18
pts) below 5% level and
< 15% (10 pts) below
1% level
▪No pt w/in central 5
0
:
sensitivity < 15 dB

Early Glaucoma Defect

▪MD > -6 dB but < -12 dB
▪PD plot, < 50% (37 pts) < 5%
level and < 25% (20 pts) < 1%
level
▪No absolute deficit (0 dB) in the
central 5
0

▪Only 1 hemi-field has point w/
sensitivity < 15 dB in the central
5
0
Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical decisions
in glaucoma. St Louis: Mosby
Criteria for Moderate Glaucoma Defect

Moderate Glaucoma Defect

▪MD > -12 dB
▪On PD plot
➢> 50% of pts < 5% level
➢> 25% of pts < 1% level
▪Absolute deficit (0 dB) in the central 5
0

▪Both hemi-fields w/ pt(s) w/ sensitivity <
15 dB w/in th central 5
0

Hodapp E, Parrish RK, Anderson DR. Clinical
decisions in glaucoma. St Louis: Mosby
Criteria for Severe Glaucoma Defect

Severe Glaucoma Defect

Detecting Progression
➢Widening or deepening of an
existing scotoma
➢Development of a new
glaucomatous scotoma
➢Occasionally generalized field
depression (although usually caused by
media opacity or miosis)
Asia Pacific Glaucoma Guidelines (2003-2004)

■Requires a series of at least 3 or 4 fields
■Basing judgements on only 1 progressed
field is very risky unless the changes
encountered are
➢Very large and/or
➢Confirmed by other clinical findings, such as
changes in optic disc configuration
Detecting Progression

Octopus
▪Series Program
➢3 examinations arranged in one
printout
▪PeriTrend
®
Statistical Software
▪EyeSuite
®
Detecting Progression

Octopus:
Series
Program
Detecting Progression

▪Calculates regression curves of MD
(mean defect) and LV (loss variance)
▪Color-coded curves to show
changes:
➢red – depressed
➢green – improved
➢blue – trend isn’t significant/stable
Octopus: PeriTrend
®
Detecting Progression

Octopus:
PeriTrend
®
Detecting Progression

Humphrey
■Overview print-out
■Glaucoma Progression Analysis
®

(GPA
®
) software
Detecting Progression

Humphrey:
Overview
print-out
Detecting
Progression

Humphrey:
GPA
®
software
Detecting
Progression

Structure-Function Correlation
■Combined w/ other examinations
■No isolated interpretations
■Disc features must match visual field
defects (clinical picture takes
precedence)

New Perimetry Technologies
■Short Wavelength Automated
Perimetry (SWAP)
➢Blue light stimulus on yellow
background (“blue on yellow”)
➢Detects VF loss 3-5 yrs before white on
white perimetry
1

➢Utilizes the “K” ganglion cells
1. Racette L et al. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003: 16: 227-236

Goldmann size V
440 nm, 1.8
0

> 500 nm yellow background
•Except for these differences, SWAP is still a basic
threshold perimetry test, in w/c std Goldmann stimuli
are presented in the conventional way

New Perimetry Technologies
■Frequency Doubling Technology
(FDT) perimeter
➢Motion/flicker perimetry
➢FDT can detect VF loss 4 yrs before
SAP
1

➢Utilizes the “M” ganglion cells/
Magnocellular pathway
1. Johnson CA et al. J Vision. 2002; 2:100a

▪Functional testing essential: SAP
▪Know retinal anatomy & its relation to
visual function
▪Know programs/parameters
➢Stick to a single one for ff-up
▪Glaucoma defects are focal
▪Progression is a hallmark of
Glaucoma
▪CLINICAL CORRELATION
Summary

Although sometimes it is not
as easy as it seems

Thank You!

Perimetry Exercises

…1 year after

…1 year after
Early defects
may show up in
probability plots
and not in the
grayscale

…1 year after

… 6 mos. after

… 6 mos. after
progressing
cataract

•elevated false “+” score
•GHF – “abnormally high sensitivity”
•“white scotoma” on grayscale
•larger defects on the pattern
deviation plots than in the total
deviation probability plots
•highly positive mean deviation (MD)
“Trigger happy” field

both a focal
and a diffuse
defect

….a year after

post cataract
surgery

double
arcuate
scotomas

superior
paracentral
scotoma

inferior nasal
step
extending to
blind spot

…1 month
after

…1 month
after
withdrawal of
miotic TX

Are the VF defects artifacts?
▪“Learning effect” ?
▪Rim effect ?
▪Ptosis, prominent brows ?
▪Lack of instructions or supervision ?
▪Anxiety/fatigue/drowsiness ?
▪Malingering ?

Learning effect
▪Depressed sensitivity in mid-periphery
20-30
0

▪Less common in shorter algorithms
▪10-20% of normal patients don’t
produce normal VF’s on their first test

Rim effect

Lid effect seen
on grayscale but
not seen on
probability plots

Ptosis effect
seen on
probability
plots

same patient
after taping
upper lid

“Cloverleaf” pattern
•Initial good responses …..then poor
•Test begins centered around 4 primary
points
• patient misunderstanding, lack of
motivation, and/or fatigue
• poor instruction/supervision by
technician

• The first visual field IS NOT THE BASELINE.
• “LEARNING CURVE”