Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients

Recent developments of telemedicine in glaucoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Telemedicine has an increasingly significant role in the fields of ophthalmology and glaucoma. This review covers recent advancements in the development and optimization of teleglaucoma techniques and applications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Glaucoma monitoring and diagnosis via remote tonometry, perimetry, and fundus imaging have become a possibility based on recent developments. Many applications work in combination with smart devices, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence and have been tested in patient populations against conventional "reference-standard" measurement tools, demonstrating promising results. Of note, there is still much progress to be made in teleglaucoma and telemedicine at large, such as accessibility to internet, broadband, and smart devices, application affordability, and reimbursement for remote services. However, continued development and optimization of these applications suggest that the implementation of remote monitoring will be a mainstay for glaucoma patient care.

SUMMARY

Especially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, remote patient care has taken on an important role in medicine and ophthalmology. Remote versions of tonometry, perimetry, and fundus imaging may allow for a more patient-centered and accessible future for glaucoma care.

Comparison of the visual field test of Glaufield Lite with Humphrey Field Analyser

PURPOSE

To compare visual field test results of Glaufield Lite AP901 CTS 133 (Appasamy Associates, Mannadipet Commune, Thirubhuvanai, Puducherry, India, hereafter Glaufield Lite) with Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA, hereafter HFA).

METHODS

A pilot study at a tertiary eye centre involving 23 normal and 24 glaucoma patients who underwent two consecutive visual field tests on (i) HFA 24-2 SITA Fast and (ii) Glaufield Lite Quick Central program.

RESULTS

The mean testing time on HFA was significantly shorter than Glaufield Lite (normals: HFA: 2.75 ± 0.49 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.85 ± 0.86 min, p < 0.001; glaucoma patients: HFA: 3.45 ± 1.08 min, Glaufield Lite: 6.95 ± 0.54 min, p < 0.001). Reliability criteria were similar, but false-positivity was lower with Glaufield Lite. Bland-Altman analysis showed poor agreement for mean deviation (MD), [~ 2.69 units less for HFA], and acceptable agreement for pattern standard deviation (PSD) [~ 0.426 units more for HFA] between the two devices.

CONCLUSION

Both perimetric techniques showed reliable test results though test duration was longer with Glaufield Lite perimetry. The MD showed poor agreement, likely due to different scales and principles used for perimetry. The PSD showed acceptable agreement, making it valid for use in glaucoma, though a direct comparison of fields from the two devices is not possible. We recommend using the same perimetry device for follow-up evaluation.

A systematic review of the current availability of mobile applications in eyecare practices

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing shift towards non-communicable eye diseases (NCEDs) because of a demographic transition. Incorporation of telemedicine into everyday clinical practice is becoming increasingly popular. We sought to carry out a systematic review to look at which applications on portable devices are available for use in eyecare practices for patients with NCEDs, specifically refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and glaucoma.

METHODS

Pubmed, EMBASE, Medline, PsychInfo databases were systematically searched using keywords and MeSH terms. Eligible articles included peer-reviewed, original full text articles evaluating apps for use on portable devices aimed at patients with NCEDs.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 100 studies. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, and an additional eight studies were identified through reference screening. Of the included studies, 29.4%% (n = 5) evaluated applications aimed for use to identify refractive errors, 35.3% (n = 6) aimed at patients with glaucoma, 23.5% (n = 4) for use by patients with AMD, 11.7% (n = 2) for the non-specific monitoring of visual acuity/fields. 76.5% (n = 13) of the studies showed that the application evaluated was an effective and reliable tool compared to clinical standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Portable device applications in patients with NCED have been shown to be effective. The use of these apps for patients is limited to either diagnostic or monitoring use. There is scope for apps which encompass other aspects of patient care that have been used in other specialties that may be applied to ophthalmic patients, including those with an educational aim which have a role in increasing compliance.

Spotlight on iPad Visual Field Tests Efficacy

Tablet based perimetry has the potential to be used as a low-cost, portable method for glaucoma screening. With the advent of tablets with large dynamic luminance range and high spatial resolution, perimetry applications can test visual field locations within the central 30 degrees, just like bowl perimetry. Tablet perimetry has garnered interest in this COVID era as it can be promptly done in the waiting room or even from the comfort of home. The current review focuses on evaluating glaucoma detection sensitivities, diagnostic abilities and correlation of each parameter and examination time of the iPad based perimetry applications with those of HFA.

The digital Cullen chart: a red colour perimetry aid for visual field examination

BACKGROUND

30 years ago, a paper chart was developed in Edinburgh by Cullen et al. and validated as a swift, supplementary method for perimetric evaluation of visual fields. We have re-developed this concept in digital form (on smartphone screen) and assessed its sensitivity and specificity in detecting visual field loss, by comparison with formal machine-based perimetry.

METHODS

Patients with sellar and parasellar tumours, being managed in a single neurosurgical centre, underwent formal visual field perimetry as part of standard care. They also underwent assessment using the smartphone-based Cullen chart. 37 eye testing episodes were assessed, incorporating pre- and post-treatment assessments for a range of potentially compressive pathologies (non-secretory and secretory pituitary adenoma, craniopharyngioma, and parasellar meningioma). The smartphone-based Cullen chart was compared with formal machine-based perimetry for concordance in detecting visual field loss.

RESULTS

The digital Cullen chart had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 98% compared with machine-based perimeters. The positive predictive value was 93% and the negative predictive value was 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

For the visual field assessment of patients with sellar/parasellar tumours, this simple and swift smartphone-based chart shows good concordance with machine-based perimeters. With amendments to the user interface, there may be potential for telemetric patient-led visual field monitoring.

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.

Sensitivity and Specificity of New Visual Field Screening Software for Diagnosing Hemianopia

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of visual field results generated by the newly developed software (CU-VF) and the standard automated perimetry (SAP) for detecting hemianopia.

Patients and Methods

Forty-three subjects with hemianopia and 33 controls were tested with the CU-VF software on a personal computer and SAP. Hemianopia was defined as the presence of a hemianopic field respecting the vertical meridian on SAP with the corresponding neuroimaging pathology as evaluated by 2 neuro-ophthalmologists. Results of CU-VF were independently evaluated by 2 neuro-ophthalmologists, 1 general ophthalmologist, and 1 general practitioner in terms of the presence of hemianopia. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient for inter-observer reliability were calculated. Satisfaction and ease of use were evaluated with a visual analog-scale questionnaire and analyzed using paired t-test.

Results

The sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) of the CU-VF to detect hemianopia was 74.42% (58.53–85.96) and 93.94% (78.38–99.94). Kappa coefficient between neuro-ophthalmologists versus general ophthalmologist and general practitioner were 0.71 and 0.84, respectively. The mean (SD) test duration was 2.25 (0.002) minutes for the CU-VF and 5.38 (1.34) minutes for SAP (p < 0.001). Subjects reported significantly higher satisfaction and comfort using the CU-VF software compared to SAP.

Conclusion

The CU-VF screening software showed good validity and reliability to detect hemianopia, with shorter test duration and higher subject satisfaction compared to SAP.

Advances in perimetry for glaucoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perimetry remains important for the diagnosis and management of glaucoma despite advances in imaging technology. The purpose of this review is to describe advances in the acquisition and analysis of visual field data and highlight novel techniques for performing perimetry.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have focused on improving the detection of patients at highest risk of severe vision loss and the development of innovative testing strategies that allow for more frequent testing. Artificial intelligence has been utilized in research settings to improve detection and characterization of glaucomatous field damage. Furthermore, tablet-based strategies and virtual reality headsets show promise for glaucoma screening and remote monitoring of patients with glaucoma.

SUMMARY

New testing strategies and research findings have improved our ability to identify patients with both paracentral and mid-peripheral visual field progression. New strategies have the potential to make visual field testing more efficient, reliable and accessible for patients with glaucoma.