Preliminary Report on a Novel Virtual Reality Perimeter Compared With Standard Automated Perimetry

Glaucoma Home Self-Testing Using VR Visual Fields and Rebound Tonometry Versus In-Clinic Perimetry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: A Pilot Study

Purpose

This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, accuracy, and repeatability of unsupervised, at-home, multi-day glaucoma testing using the Olleyes VisuALL Virtual Reality Platform (VRP) and the iCare HOME handheld self-tonometer.

Methods

Participants were trained to use two U.S. Food and Drug Administration-registered or approved devices before conducting self-tests at home over 3 consecutive days. The iCare HOME intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were collected four times daily per eye, and VRP visual field tests were performed once daily. The results were compared with one in-clinic Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) visual field test performed on the day of device training, iCare HOME measurements by the trainer, and the last five Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) results.

Results

Of 15 enrolled participants, nine of them (60%) completed the study. The six excluded participants could not self-measure using iCare HOME. There was significant correlation between the average mean deviation (MD) values of the at-home VRP tests and in-clinic HFA test (r2 = 0.8793, P < 0.001). Additionally, the average of the sensitivities in five of six Garway-Heath sectors were significantly correlated. VRP test duration was also shorter than in-clinic HFA testing (P < 0.001). Finally, at-home tonometry yielded statistically similar values compared to trainer-obtained iCare HOME values. The mean and range of at-home tonometry were also statistically similar to those for in-clinic GAT, but at-home tonometry demonstrated higher maximum IOP values (P = 0.0429).

Conclusions

Unsupervised, at-home, multi-day glaucoma testing using two devices resulted in the capture of higher maximum IOPs than in the clinic and good MD correlation of VRP with HFA. However, 40% of participants could not self-measure IOP using iCare HOME.

Translational Relevance

The study findings suggest that at-home remote glaucoma monitoring correlates with in-office testing and could provide additional information for glaucoma management, although patients had more difficulty with the iCare HOME than the VRP.

[Virtual reality perimetry and home perimetry]

In this article virtual reality (VR)-based procedures for home perimetry (HP) are described and an overview is given of which procedures can already be used today.

Repeatability of a Virtual Reality Headset Perimeter in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertensive Patients

Purpose

The VisuALL S is an automated, static threshold, virtual reality-based perimeter for mobile evaluation of the visual field. We examined same-day and 3-month repeatability.

Methods

Adult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma or ocular hypertension underwent two VisuALL 24-2 Normal T- Full threshold strategy tests at baseline and one additional exam at 3 months for each eligible eye. Spearman, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the correlation of individual point sensitivities and mean deviation (MD) among three tests.

Results

Eighty-eight eyes (44 participants) were included. Average age was 68.1 ± 14.3 years, and 60.7% were male. VisuALL MD was highly correlated between tests (intravisit: r = 0.89, intervisit: r = 0.82; P < 0.001 for both). Bland-Altman analysis showed an average difference in intravisit MD of -0.67 dB (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.04 to 4.71 dB) and -0.15 dB (95% CI, -8.04 to 7.73 dB) for intervisit exams. Eight-five percent of pointwise intravisit ICCs were above 0.75 (range, 0.63 to 0.93), and 65% of pointwise intervisit ICCs were above 0.75 (range, 0.55 to 0.91).

Conclusions

VisuALL demonstrated high correlation of MD between tests and good repeatability for individual point sensitivities among three tests in 3 months, except at the points around the blind spot and superiorly.

Translational Relevance

The preliminary reproducibility results for VisuALL are encouraging. Its portable design makes it a potentially useful tool for patients with glaucoma, enabling more frequent assessments both at home and in clinical settings.

Virtual reality headsets for perimetry testing: a systematic review

Standard automated perimetery is considered the gold standard for evaluating a patient's visual field. However, it is costly and requires a fixed testing environment. In response, perimetric devices using virtual reality (VR) headsets have emerged as an alternative way to measure visual fields in patients. This systematic review aims to characterize both novel and established VR headsets in the literature and explore their potential applications within visual field testing. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Core Collection (Web of Science) for articles published until January 2023. Subject headings and keywords related to virtual reality and visual field were used to identify studies specific to this topic. Records were first screened by title/abstract and then by full text using predefined criteria. Data was extracted accordingly. A total of 2404 records were identified from the databases. After deduplication and the two levels of screening, 64 studies describing 36 VR headset perimetry devices were selected for extraction. These devices encompassed various visual field measurement techniques, including static and kinetic perimetry, with some offering vision rehabilitation capabilities. This review reveals a growing consensus that VR headset perimetry devices perform comparably to, or even better than, standard automated perimetry. They are better tolerated by patients in terms of gaze fixation, more cost-effective, and generally more accessible for patients with limited mobility.

Assessment of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of a Novel Test for Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of remotely training glaucoma patients to take a 10-session clustered virtual reality (VR) visual field (VF) test (Vivid Vision Perimetry [VVP-10]) at home, analyze results for test-retest variability, and assess correspondence with conventional perimetry.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-one subjects with glaucoma were enrolled and included in the feasibility assessment of remote training. Thirty-six eyes were used for test-retest analysis and determination of concordance with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).

METHODS

Subjects were provided with a mobile VR headset containing the VVP-10 test software and trained remotely via video conferencing. Subjects were instructed to complete 10 sessions over a 14-day period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility was determined by the number of subjects who were able to independently complete VVP-10 over the 14-day period after 1 remote training session. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for average fraction seen across 10 sessions and the standard error (SE) of the mean were primary outcome measures for assessing test-retest variability. Correlation with HFA mean sensitivity (MS) across eyes, was a secondary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Twenty subjects (95%) successfully completed the VVP-10 test series after 1 training session. The ICC for VVP-10 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.97). The mean SE in units of fraction seen was 0.012. The Spearman correlations between VVP-10 average fraction seen and HFA MS were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.66-0.98) for moderate-to-advanced glaucoma eyes, and decreased to 0.67 (95% CI, 0.28-0.94) when all eyes were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote training of patients at home is feasible, and subsequent remote clustered VF testing using VVP-10 by patients on their own, without any further interactions with caregivers or study staff, was possible. At-home VVP-10 results demonstrated low test-retest variability. Future studies must be conducted to determine if VVP-10, taken at home as convenient for the patient, may be a viable supplement to provide equivalent or complementary results to that of standard in-clinic assessment of visual function in glaucoma.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Validation of a Wearable Virtual Reality Perimeter for Glaucoma Staging, The NOVA Trial: Novel Virtual Reality Field Assessment

Purpose

Compare estimated sensitivities of SITA-Standard to the RATA-Standard algorithm of the Radius virtual reality perimeter (VRP), and measure concordance in glaucoma staging.

Methods

One hundred adult glaucoma patients-half with suspect or mild glaucoma, and half with moderate or severe-from five clinics performed four 24-2 visual field tests during a single visit, two with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and two with Radius, in randomized order: HRHR or RHRH. Only one eye was tested per participant. We used the Wilcoxon rank sum test with Bonferroni correction to compare distributions of estimated sensitivities across all 54 test locations over the 15 to 40 dB measurement range of the Radius. Weighted kappa measured concordance in glaucoma staging between two masked glaucoma experts using Medicare definitions of severity.

Results

A total of 62 OD and 38 OS eyes were tested. Estimated sensitivities for SITA-Standard and RATA-Standard were not significantly different for OD, but were for OS-likely because of SITA-Standard OD and OS being significantly different in our sample, but not for RATA-Standard. Low agreement was observed between 15 to 22 dB. Concordance in glaucoma staging was high for both graders: kappa = 0.91 and kappa = 0.93. Average test duration was 298 seconds for RATA-Standard and 341 seconds for SITA-Standard. The correlation in mean deviation was 0.94.

Conclusions

Estimated sensitivities of RATA-Standard are comparable to SITA-Standard between 23 to 40 dB with high concordance in glaucoma staging.

Translational Relevance

Radius VRP is statistically noninferior to HFA when staging glaucoma using Medicare definitions.

Performance of VisuALL virtual reality visual field testing in healthy children

BACKGROUND

Virtual reality field testing may provide an alternative to standard automated perimetry. This study evaluates a virtual reality game-based automated perimetry in a healthy pediatric population.

METHODS

A prospective series of pediatric patients at one institution who performed VisuALL perimetry (Olleyes Inc, Summit, NJ) using a game-based algorithm. Participants were examined by an experienced pediatric optometrist or ophthalmologist, who confirmed that there was no evidence of ocular disease expected to affect visual fields. Testing was performed binocularly, with the child wearing their spectacle correction in place. Age, refractive error, test duration, false positives, and stereoacuity were evaluated for associations with performance on VisuALL, as defined by mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD).

RESULTS

A total of 191 eyes of 97 patients (54% female) were included, with a mean age of 11.9 ± 3.1 years. The average MD was -1.82 ± 3.5 dB, with a mean foveal sensitivity of 32.0 ± 4.7 dB. Fifty-nine eyes (30.9%) had MD < -2 dB. Better performance, as assessed by MD and PSD, was associated with shorter test duration (P < 0.001) and older age (P < 0.001). False positives (P = 0.442), wearing spectacles (P = 0.092), Titmus stereoacuity (P = 0.197), and refractive error (P = 0.120) did not appear to be associated with improved performance, adjusting for age as a covariate.

CONCLUSIONS

VisuALL virtual reality field testing was well tolerated in this pediatric study cohort. Older age and shorter test duration were associated with better performance on field testing.

Online Circular Contrast Perimetry via a Web-Application: Establishing a Normative Database for Central 10-Degree Perimetry

Purpose

To establish a normative database using a central 10-degree grid pattern for the online circular contrast perimetry (OCCP) application.

Participants

Fifty participants with mean age 65 ± 13 years were selected for this study. One eye from each participant that met inclusion criteria was randomly included in the cohort.

Methods

The web-application delivered online 52-loci perimetry in a central 10-degree pattern using circular flickering targets. These targets consist of concentric sinusoidal alternating contrast rings. Users were guided by the application to the correct viewing distance and head position using in-built blind spot localization and webcam monitoring. A spinning golden star was used as the fixation target and patients performed the test in a darkened room following standard automated perimetry (SAP).

Results

The reliability rates and global indices for OCCP were similar to SAP. OCCP mean sensitivity reduced with age at a similar rate to SAP. Mean sensitivity per loci of 10-degree OCCP was greater than SAP by 1.24 log units (95% CI 1.23 to 1.26) and obeyed a physiological hill of vision. Small differences existed in mean sensitivities between OCCP and SAP which increased with increasing spot eccentricity. Mean deviation (MD) displayed good agreement between the two tests.

Conclusion

Central 10-degree online circular contrast perimetry via a computer-based application has comparable perimetric results to standard automated perimetry in a normal cohort.

Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients

PURPOSE

To compare clinical visual field outputs in glaucoma and healthy patients returned by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and virtual reality (Virtual Field, VF) perimetry.

METHODS

One eye of 54 glaucoma patients and 41 healthy subjects was prospectively tested (three times each in random order) using the HFA and VF perimeters (24-2 test grids). We extracted and compared global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), pointwise sensitivity (and calculated 'equivalent' sensitivity after accounting for differences in background luminance) and pointwise defects. Bland-Altman (mean difference [Mdiff ] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]) and intraclass correlation analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The VF test was shorter (by 76 s) and had lower fixation losses (by 0.08) and false-positive rate (by 0.01) compared to the HFA (all p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlations were 0.86, 0.82 and 0.47 for MD, PSD and pointwise sensitivity between devices, respectively. Test-retest variability was higher for VF (Mdiff 0.3 dB, LoA -7.6 to 8.2 dB) compared to the HFA (Mdiff -0.3 dB, LoA -6.4 to 5.9 dB), indicating greater test-retest variability. When using each device's underlying normative database, the HFA detected, on average, 7 more defects (at the p < 0.05 level) out of the 52 test locations compared to this iteration of VF in the glaucoma cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual Field returns global results that are correlated with the HFA, but pointwise sensitivities were more variable. Differences in test-retest variability and defect detection by its current normative database raise questions about the widespread adoption of VF in lieu of the HFA.

Performance of virtual reality game-based automated perimetry in patients with childhood glaucoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate VisuALL, a game-based automated perimetry device, utilizing virtual reality (VR) goggles, in a cohort of patients with childhood glaucoma.

METHODS

In this prospective series, the results of consecutive patients with childhood glaucoma performing both VisuALL VR field (VRF) and Humphrey visual field (HVF) 24-2 testing were compared. A masked ophthalmologist graded both VRF and HVF tests for field defects (three clustered abnormal points in total or pattern deviation plot). VRF testing was performed binocularly and with the child's own spectacles. The two devices were assessed with respect to agreement of (1) global indices, such as mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD), (2) point-by-point sensitivity, and (3) the ability to detect visual field defects determined by a grader.

RESULTS

A total of 39 children (77 eyes) were enrolled, with mean age 14.1 ± 3.6 years; 3 patients (5 eyes) could not complete the HVF. Average HVF MD was -6.3 ± 6.4 dB. There was strong correlation between VRF and HVF for MD (R = 0.68, P < 0.001), PSD (R = 0.78, P < 0.001), and point-by-point sensitivity (R = 0.63, P < 0.001). Bland Altman analysis showed no systematic difference between VRF and HVF in assessing MD and PSD. Of 72 eyes having results for both modalities, 63 (87.5%) had agreement between VRF and HVF with respect to the presence/absence of any field defect, and 52 (72.2%) had agreement regarding the presence/absence of fixation-threatening field loss.

CONCLUSIONS

VRF is comparable to the gold standard HVF in both identification and quantification of visual field deficits in pediatric glaucoma patients and may offer a valuable supplement or alternative to standard automated perimetry.

Participant Experience Using Novel Perimetry Tests to Monitor Glaucoma Progression

PRCIS

Participant surveys taken after using tablet-based and smart visual function analyzer (SVFA) perimetry tests suggest that patients may prefer novel perimetry tests over traditional visual field machines.

PURPOSE

Compare patient experience using the IMOvifa SVFA and the tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields visual field (VF) tests to the Humphrey Field 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study on adult participants with diagnoses of glaucoma suspect, ocular hypertension, or glaucoma. Participants attended 2 study visits ~3 months apart. During the first visit, participants were trained to use the 2 novel perimeters, took 1 test on both new devices and the Humphrey Field Analyzer, then were surveyed. Participants received tablets and performed weekly tablet VF tests at home between study visits. At the final study visit, participants re-took the VF tests and completed the same surveys.

RESULTS

Eighty-one participants were surveyed twice. At the baseline survey, participants preferred the SVFA (71.7%) and tablet tests (69.2%) over the Humphrey VF. Most were willing to perform weekly monitoring at home on the SVFA (69.1%) and tablet (75.4%). Participants generally had a "very good" overall experience when testing on the SVFA (71.6%) and tablet (90.1%). At the final visit, fewer participants were willing to test on the tablet daily (23.5% to 9.9%; P = 0.02 for change) and more were willing to test monthly (18.5% to 33.3%; P = 0.03 for change).

CONCLUSION

Users reported a preference for novel VF devices. Overall participant experience using these devices was positive, supporting the feasibility of home monitoring of VFs from an experience perspective.

Remote Perimetry in a Virtual Reality Metaverse Environment for Out-of-Hospital Functional Eye Screening Compared Against the Gold Standard Humphrey Visual Fields Perimeter: Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The growing global burden of visual impairment necessitates better population eye screening for early detection of eye diseases. However, accessibility to testing is often limited and centralized at in-hospital settings. Furthermore, many eye screening programs were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, presenting an urgent need for out-of-hospital solutions.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the performance of a novel remote perimetry application designed in a virtual reality metaverse environment to enable functional testing in community-based and primary care settings.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study investigating the performance of a novel remote perimetry solution in comparison with the gold standard Humphrey visual field (HVF) perimeter. Subjects received a comprehensive ophthalmologic assessment, HVF perimetry, and remote perimetry testing. The primary outcome measure was the agreement in the classification of overall perimetry result normality by the HVF (Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast) and testing with the novel algorithm. Secondary outcome measures included concordance of individual testing points and perimetry topographic maps.

RESULTS

We recruited 10 subjects with an average age of 59.6 (range 28-81) years. Of these, 7 (70%) were male and 3 (30%) were female. The agreement in the classification of overall perimetry results was high (9/10, 90%). The pointwise concordance in the automated classification of individual test points was 83.3% (8.2%; range 75%-100%). In addition, there was good perimetry topographic concordance with the HVF in all subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote perimetry in a metaverse environment had good concordance with gold standard perimetry using the HVF and could potentially avail functional eye screening in out-of-hospital settings.

Test-retest repeatability of the imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test in patients with glaucoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the reproducibility of the imo binocular random single-eye test (BRSET) and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) monocular test in patients with glaucoma.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

METHODS

We measured the visual fields (VF) of patients with glaucoma using the BRSET and HFA. All tests were repeated two months later. Mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), sensitivity at each test location, and reliability indices were compared between the test days. Wilcoxon signed-rank test, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots were generated for analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed the VFs of 46 patients with glaucoma. There were no test-retest differences for MS and MD, and ICCs were > 0.9 for MS and MD in both perimeters. Inter-test correlations for MS and MD were high. The limits of agreement (LoAs) (lower, upper limit) between test days for MS were (- 3.4, 4.0) for BRSET and (-3.3, 3.0) for HFA. The LoA for MD was (- 3.3, 3.8) for BRSET and (- 3.2, 2.9) for HFA. Sensitivity at each testing location was more variable between testing days for BRSET than for HFA. For reliability indices, LoAs between testing days were wider for BRSET than for HFA.

CONCLUSION

The imo BRSET showed similar reproducibility to HFA in MS and MD. However, sensitivity at each test location varied more for BRSET than for HFA. Further studies are needed to verify the reproducibility of the imo BRSET.

Validation of the Iowa Head-Mounted Open-Source Perimeter

Purpose

To assess the validity of visual field (VF) results from the Iowa Head-Mounted Display (HMD) Open-Source Perimeter and to test the hypothesis that VF defects and test-retest repeatability are similar between the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters.

Methods

We tested 20 healthy and nine glaucoma patients on the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters using the Open Perimetry Interface platform with size V stimuli, a custom grid spanning the central 26° of the VF, and a ZEST thresholding algorithm. Historical data from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) were also analyzed. Repeatability was analyzed with the repeatability coefficient (RC), and VF defect detection was determined through side-by-side comparisons.

Results

The pointwise RCs were 2.6 dB and 3.4 dB for the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters in ocular healthy subjects, respectively. Likewise, the RCs were 4.2 dB and 3.5 dB, respectively, in glaucomatous patients. Limits of agreement between the HMD and Octopus 900 perimeters were ±4.6 dB (mean difference, 0.4 dB) for healthy patients and ±8.9 dB (mean difference, 0.1 dB) for glaucomatous patients. Retrospective analysis showed that pointwise RCs on the HFA2 perimeter were between 3.4 and 3.7 dB for healthy patients and between 3.9 and 4.7 dB for glaucoma patients. VF defects were similar between the HMD and Octopus 900 for glaucoma subjects.

Conclusions

The Iowa Virtual Reality HMD Open-Source Perimeter is as repeatable as the Octopus 900 perimeter and is a more portable and less expensive alternative than traditional perimeters.

Translational Relevance

This study demonstrates the validity of the visual field results from the Iowa HMD Open-Source Perimeter which may help expand perimetry access.

Teleglaucoma Using a New Smartphone-Based Tool for Visual Field Assessment

PRCIS

COVID-19 underlines the importance of telemedical diagnostics. The smartphone-based campimetry (Sb-C) is a newly developed digital application allowing visual field testing using a head-mounted device and a smartphone. It enables visual field screening remotely from a clinic.

BACKGROUND

Sb-C is a newly developed tool for functional ophthalmic diagnosis. This study aimed to examine the comparability of the Sb-C and Octopus 900 to ensure ophthalmological care in times of social distancing.

METHODS

Total 93 eyes were included in the study. After an ophthalmological examination, the visual field was tested by the Octopus program G1 and by the smartphone-based campimeter. The Sb-C was performed using VR glasses and an iPhone 6. The software Sb-C was downloaded and installed as SmartCampiTracker app and is examining the 30-degree visual field with 59 test positions corresponding to the G pattern of Octopus G1. Sensitivities were recorded and saved on the app. In addition, test-retest reliability was tested on 6 ophthalmologically healthy participants.

RESULTS

The group comprised 48 women and 45 men (mean age: 62.52±12.2 y) including 19 controls, 17 patients with ocular hypertension, 11 preperimetric glaucomas, and 46 perimetric glaucomas. The mean sensitivity (MS) of all points of G1 perimetry was 23.13 dB (95% CI, 22.08-24.18). The MS of the Sb-C was 21.23 dB (95% CI, 20.37-22.08). The correlation between the mean MS measured by G1 perimetry and the Sb-C was strong ( r =0.815, P <0.05). The test-retest reliability showed a correlation of r =0.591 ( P <0.05) .

CONCLUSIONS

With some technical adjustments, the Sb-C shows promise for screening glaucoma and monitoring disease progression remotely from an ophthalmologic clinic.

Application and Validation of LUXIE: A Newly Developed Virtual Reality Perimetry Software

PURPOSE

To report the application of LUXIE and validate its reliability by comparing the test results with those of Humphrey Field Analyzer 3 (HFA3).

METHODS

In this pilot study, we prospectively recruited participants who had received HFA3 SITA standard 30-2 perimetry and tested them with LUXIE on the same day. LUXIE is a software designed for visual field testing cooperating with HTC Vive Pro Eye, a head-mounted virtual reality device with an eye-tracking system. The test stimuli were synchronized with eye movements captured by the eye-tracking system to eliminate fixation loss. The global, hemifields, quadrants, glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) sectors, and point-by-point retinal sensitivities were compared between LUXIE and HFA3. All participants were asked to fill out a post-test user survey.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight participants with 65 eyes were enrolled. LUXIE demonstrated good correlations with HFA3 in global (r = 0.81), superior hemifield (r = 0.77), superonasal, superotemporal, and inferonasal quadrants (r = 0.80, 0.78, 0.80). The user survey showed that participants were more satisfied with LUXIE in operating difficulty, comfortability, time perception, concentration, and overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

LUXIE demonstrated good correlations with HFA3. Fixation loss could be eliminated in LUXIE with the eye-tracking system. The application of virtual reality devices such as the HTC Vive Pro Eye makes telemedicine and even home-based self-screening visual field tests possible.

KEY MESSAGES

1. Virtual reality perimetry is a developing technology that has the potential in telemedicine, and home self-screening visual field tests. 2. LUXIE demonstrated good correlations with Humphrey Field Analyzer 3 in visual field retinal sensitivities.

Home-Based Perimetry for Glaucoma: Where Are We Now?

PURPOSE

To systematically summarize the current literature on home-based perimeters for glaucoma.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-DTA checklist. Studies reporting portable perimeters designed for home use were retrieved from electronic databases and handsearching of reference lists of relevant publications. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy data were evaluated with the QUADAS-2 tool and using standard automated perimetry as the reference standard. Other aspects of the technology such as detection of disease progression and patient acceptability were also included. Data were reported in a narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

Of 18 included studies, 10 evaluated tablet-based perimeters, 4 evaluated web-based perimeters, and 4 evaluated head-mounted displays. Most studies used a clinic or laboratory setting. All studies reporting diagnostic accuracy data had high risk of bias in at least one domain. Across studies, sensitivity ranged from 54% in detecting mild to 91% in detecting moderate/severe glaucoma patients from controls, while specificity was between 50% and 100% for any form of glaucoma. The reported acceptability was high but had high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Several promising technologies designed for home-based perimetry have been reported. Current studies used a controlled setting in highly selected populations. There is uncertainty on the performance and value of home-based perimetry for glaucoma. Additional efforts are required to elucidate the ability of the home-based perimeters to detect glaucoma and disease progression in real life situations.

Virtual Reality Oculokinetic Perimetry Test Reproducibility and Relationship to Conventional Perimetry and OCT

Purpose

Vivid Vision Perimetry (VVP; Vivid Vision, Inc) is a novel method for performing in-office and home-based visual field assessment using a virtual reality platform and oculokinetic perimetry. Here we examine the reproducibility of VVP Swift and compare results with conventional standard automated perimetry (SAP) and spectral-domain (SD) OCT.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Participants

Fourteen eyes of 7 patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) (average age, 64.6 years; 29% women) and 10 eyes of 5 patients with suspected glaucoma (average age, 61.8 years; 40% women) were enrolled.

Methods

Patients with OAG and suspected glaucoma were enrolled prospectively and underwent 2 VVP Swift examinations. Results were compared with 1 conventional SAP examination (Humphrey Visual Field [HVF]; Zeiss) and 1 SD OCT examination.

Main Outcome Measures

Mean sensitivity (in decibels) obtained for each eye in 2 VVP Swift test sessions and a conventional SAP examination, thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC) for the SD OCT examination, and mean test durations of the VVP Swift and SAP examinations.

Results

The mean test duration of VVP Swift in both eyes (8.5 minutes) was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) than SAP (12.2 minutes). The average absolute difference of the mean sensitivity between the 2 VVP Swift sessions was found to be 0.73 dB (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–1.06). A statistically significant association was found between average mean sensitivity measurements from the VVP and mean deviation (MD) measurements obtained by the HVF with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70–0.94; P < 0.001). Mean visual sensitivity measurements from the VVP Swift test were significantly associated with average RNFL thickness (r = 0.66; P = 0.014) and GCC thickness (r = 0.63; P = 0.02), whereas the correlation coefficients between HVF MD and RNFL and GCC were 0.86 (P < 0.001) and 0.83 (P < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrated that the VVP Swift test can generate reproducible results and is comparable with conventional SAP. This suggests that the device can be used by clinicians to assess visual function in glaucoma.

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality- Emerging Screening and Diagnostic Techniques in Ophthalmology: a Systematic Review

In healthcare, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have been applied extensively for many purposes. Similar to other technologies such as telemedicine and artificial intelligence, VR and AR may improve clinical diagnosis and screening services in ophthalmology by alleviating current problems, including workforce shortage, diagnostic error, and underdiagnosis. In the past decade a number of studies and products have used VR and AR concepts to build clinical tests for ophthalmology, but comprehensive reviews on these studies are limited. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review on the use of VR and AR as a diagnostic and screening tool in ophthalmology. We identified 26 studies that implemented a variety of VR and AR tests on different conditions, including VR cover tests for binocular vision disorder, VR perimetry for glaucoma, and AR slit lamp biomicroscopy for retinal diseases. In general, while VR and AR tools can become standardized, automated, and cost-effective tests with good user experience, several weaknesses, including unsatisfactory accuracy, weak validation, and hardware limitations, have prevented these VR and AR tools from having wider clinical application. Also, a comparison between VR and AR is made to explain why studies have predominantly used VR rather than AR.

Patients Prefer a Virtual Reality Approach Over a Similarly Performing Screen-Based Approach for Continuous Oculomotor-Based Screening of Glaucomatous and Neuro-Ophthalmological Visual Field Defects

Standard automated perimetry (SAP) is the gold standard for evaluating the presence of visual field defects (VFDs). Nevertheless, it has requirements such as prolonged attention, stable fixation, and a need for a motor response that limit application in various patient groups. Therefore, a novel approach using eye movements (EMs) - as a complementary technique to SAP - was developed and tested in clinical settings by our group. However, the original method uses a screen-based eye-tracker which still requires participants to keep their chin and head stable. Virtual reality (VR) has shown much promise in ophthalmic diagnostics - especially in terms of freedom of head movement and precise control over experimental settings, besides being portable. In this study, we set out to see if patients can be screened for VFDs based on their EM in a VR-based framework and if they are comparable to the screen-based eyetracker. Moreover, we wanted to know if this framework can provide an effective and enjoyable user experience (UX) compared to our previous approach and the conventional SAP. Therefore, we first modified our method and implemented it on a VR head-mounted device with built-in eye tracking. Subsequently, 15 controls naïve to SAP, 15 patients with a neuro-ophthalmological disorder, and 15 glaucoma patients performed three tasks in a counterbalanced manner: (1) a visual tracking task on the VR headset while their EM was recorded, (2) the preceding tracking task but on a conventional screen-based eye tracker, and (3) SAP. We then quantified the spatio-temporal properties (STP) of the EM of each group using a cross-correlogram analysis. Finally, we evaluated the human-computer interaction (HCI) aspects of the participants in the three methods using a user-experience questionnaire. We find that: (1) the VR framework can distinguish the participants according to their oculomotor characteristics; (2) the STP of the VR framework are similar to those from the screen-based eye tracker; and (3) participants from all the groups found the VR-screening test to be the most attractive. Thus, we conclude that the EM-based approach implemented in VR can be a user-friendly and portable companion to complement existing perimetric techniques in ophthalmic clinics.

Virtual Reality-Based and Conventional Visual Field Examination Comparison in Healthy and Glaucoma Patients

Purpose

Clinically evaluate the noninferiority of a custom virtual reality (VR) perimetry system when compared to a clinically and routinely used perimeter on both healthy subjects and glaucoma patients.

Methods

We use a custom-designed VR perimetry system tailored for visual field testing. The system uses Oculus Quest VR headset (Facebook Technologies, LLC, Bern, Switzerland), that includes a clicker for participant response feedback. A prospective, single center, study was conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology of the Bern University Hospital (Bern, Switzerland) for 12 months. Of the 114 participants recruited 70 subjects (36 healthy and 34 glaucoma patients with early to moderate visual field loss) were included in the study. Participants underwent perimetry tests on an Octopus 900 (Haag-Streit, Köniz, Switzerland) as well as on the custom VR perimeter. In both cases, standard dynamic strategy (DS) was used in conjunction with the G testing pattern. Collected visual fields (VFs) from both devices were then analyzed and compared.

Results

High mean defect (MD) correlations between the two systems (Spearman, ρ ≥ 0.75) were obtained. The VR system was found to slightly underestimate VF defects in glaucoma subjects (1.4 dB). No significant bias was found with respect to eccentricity or subject age. On average, a similar number of stimuli presentations per VF was necessary when measuring glaucoma patients and healthy subjects.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that a clinically used perimeter and the proposed VR perimetry system have comparable performances with respect to a number of perimetry parameters in healthy and glaucoma patients with early to moderate visual field loss.

Translational Relevance

This suggests that VR perimeters have the potential to assess VFs with high enough confidence, whereby alleviating challenges in current perimetry practices by providing a portable and more accessible visual field test.

New Strategies for Automated Perimetry: Historical Perspective and Future Innovations

How to cite this article: Groth SL. New Strategies for Automated Perimetry: Historical Perspective and Future Innovations. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2021;15(3):103-105.

[Telemedical applications in ophthalmology in times of COVID-19]

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic access to and utilization of ophthalmologic healthcare providers was partially restricted.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides an overview of already available tele-ophthalmologic applications for better care during the pandemic as well as those still under development.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included an analysis of current scientific publications, analysis of unrestricted screening applications in smart device app stores as well as telemetric medical products specifically designed for home monitoring and discussion of the requirements of an integrated ophthalmologic video consultation.

RESULTS

There is significant interest in tele-ophthalmologic applications and devices as evidenced by a rise in the number of relevant publications. Freely available screening tests for smart phones and tablets are as a rule currently not validated and show significant discrepancies from established standard tests. Telemetric medical devices show great potential for home monitoring in chronic ophthalmologic diseases but must first become established in the clinical routine.

CONCLUSION

There is an unmet need for systematic analysis, development and validation of telemedical applications and medical products for ophthalmology in order to advantageously utilize the potential of telemedicine and to incorporate this into an ophthalmologic video consultation.

Patient and technician perspectives following the introduction of frontloaded visual field testing in glaucoma assessment

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Frontloaded visual field testing (twice per eye per session) is well-tolerated by patients and technicians, representing a viable strategy that can be implemented in routine clinical practice to capture enough clinical perimetry data for effective disease diagnosis, surveillance and management.

BACKGROUND

To determine the experiences of patients and technicians following the implementation of frontloaded visual field testing (multiple tests per eye within the same session) in a glaucoma service.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. A written questionnaire was administered to patients (three questions) attending the glaucoma service at the Centre for Eye Health for glaucoma assessment and to their administering perimetry technicians (two questions). The questionnaire was administered after static automated perimetry (24-2 SITA-Faster on the Humphrey Field Analyzer) was performed twice for each eye (frontloaded) within the same session. Respondents were asked to provide a 1-5 Likert scale response to questions that targeted operational issues for frontloaded visual field testing. Responses were correlated against to demographic (age, gender, ethnicity) and clinical (diagnosis, refractive error, visual field indices, test duration) parameters.

RESULTS

Approximately 90% of patient respondents agreed that frontloaded visual field testing was clearly explained to them, that they were comfortable during the test, and would prefer completing the tests at a single visit rather than returning to repeat the test. Most technician respondents were also able to keep their patients comfortable. 13% of technician respondents felt they ran late during the session, but on average, the total test duration for four visual field tests was 13 minutes, including breaks. There was no correlation found between demographic and clinical factors, and the responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Frontloaded visual field testing was well-tolerated by patients and technicians. Strategies that may be helpful for other clinics to adopt this new paradigm are described.

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Ophthalmology: A Contemporary Prospective

PURPOSE

Most published systematic reviews have focused on the use of virtual reality (VR)/augmented reality (AR) technology in ophthalmology as it relates to surgical training. To date, this is the first review that investigates the current state of VR/AR technology applied more broadly to the entire field of ophthalmology.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched systematically from January 2014 through December 1, 2020. Studies that discussed VR and/or AR as it relates to the field of ophthalmology and provided information on the technology used were considered. Abstracts, non-peer-reviewed literature, review articles, studies that reported only qualitative data, and studies without English translations were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 77 studies were included in this review. Of these, 28 evaluated the use of VR/AR in ophthalmic surgical training/assessment and guidance, 7 in clinical training, 23 in diagnosis/screening, and 19 in treatment/therapy. 15 studies used AR, 61 used VR, and 1 used both. Most studies focused on the validity and usability of novel technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Ophthalmology is a field of medicine that is well suited for the use of VR/AR. However, further longitudinal studies examining the practical feasibility, efficacy, and safety of such novel technologies, the cost-effectiveness, and medical/legal considerations are still needed. We believe that time will indeed foster further technological advances and lead to widespread use of VR/AR in routine ophthalmic practice.