Comparative Material on Automated and Semi-automated Perimeters

A history of perimetry and visual field testing

Perimetry and visual field testing have been used as clinical ophthalmic diagnostic tools for many years, and this manuscript will provide a brief historical overview of these procedures and the individuals who developed them. Today, we have many different forms of perimetry that are designed to evaluate different locations within the visual pathways and various mechanisms and subsets of mechanisms within the visual system. However, the most widely used method of performing perimetry and visual field testing has not substantially changed for more than 150 years, consisting of detecting a small target superimposed on a uniform background at different locations within the field of view. Although the basic test procedure has remained similar throughout the ages, there have been many advances in test administration, standardization, statistical evaluation, clinical analysis, interpretation, and prediction of outcome based on visual field findings.

Automated and manual perimetry-a six-year overview. Special emphasis on neuro-ophthalmic problems

Between August 1976 and September 1982, more than 34,000 manual and automated visual fields have been analyzed in the Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, Davis. Approximately 27% of these tests consisted of manual kinetic visual fields performed on the Goldmann perimeter, while 73% were conducted using automated perimetry. Automated testing alone, or a combination of automated perimetry and manual kinetic testing (Goldmann perimeter) was usually employed to monitor progression or regression of visual field loss. This paper provides an overview of two aspects of automated suprathreshold static perimetry that have not been emphasized in our previous studies: (1) methodologic difficulties and problem patients in automated suprathreshold static perimetry, and (2) examples of automated suprathreshold static perimetry in neuro-ophthalmologic patient populations.

Comparative material on automated and semiautomated perimeters-1983

In reviewing all the responses from the private practitioners and clinicians in Departments of Ophthalmology throughout the United States and Canada, it would appear that the majority of individuals are quite happy with the automated perimeters they have purchased. Clinicians should be aware that this is a rapidly changing field and several devices which were previously available are no longer being manufactured. In addition, because of the competition which has recently developed in the automated perimetry industry, prices are continuing to come down. Some practitioners have been unhappy with the fact they paid a higher price for a device which is currently selling at a lower price. However, a similar phenomenon has happened in the computer world and is to be expected as competition increases. The major problems which seem to be of concern to all ophthalmologists, are the difficulty in interpreting data and the management of the data. We believe one of the major frustrations of all practitioners using automated perimeters relates to the fact that this is a totally new technique, which requires time and practice to gain familiarity. In general, it would appear that most of the practitioners have been happy with the service provided by various companies, although there are a few exceptions. Read the enclosed responses and develop your own conclusions. We hope you find the information useful.