Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy between Octopus 900 and Goldmann Kinetic Visual Fields

Abstract EN

Purpose.

To determine diagnostic accuracy of kinetic visual field assessment by Octopus 900 perimetry compared with Goldmann perimetry.

Methods.

Prospective cross section evaluation of 40 control subjects with full visual fields and 50 patients with known visual field loss.

Comparison of test duration and area measurement of isopters for Octopus 3, 5, and 10°/sec stimulus speeds.

Comparison of test duration and type of visual field classification for Octopus versus Goldmann perimetry.

Results were independently graded for presence/absence of field defect and for type and location of defect.

Statistical evaluation comprised of ANOVA and paired t test for evaluation of parametric data with Bonferroni adjustment.

Bland Altman and Kappa tests were used for measurement of agreement between data.

Results.

Octopus 5°/sec perimetry had comparable test duration to Goldmann perimetry.

Octopus perimetry reliably detected type and location of visual field loss with visual fields matched to Goldmann results in 88.8% of results (K=0.775).

Conclusions.

Kinetic perimetry requires individual tailoring to ensure accuracy.

Octopus perimetry was reproducible for presence/absence of visual field defect.

Our screening protocol when using Octopus perimetry is 5°/sec for determining boundaries of peripheral isopters and 3°/sec for blind spot mapping with further evaluation of area of field loss for defect depth and size.