Comparison of central visual sensitivity between monocular and binocular testing in advanced glaucoma patients using imo perimetry
Open Access
- 9 March 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Vol. 104 (11), 1528-1534
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315251
Abstract
Background/Aim This study aimed to compare central visual sensitivity under monocular and binocular conditions in patients with glaucoma using the new imo static perimetry. Methods Fifty-one consecutive eyes of 51 patients with open-angle glaucoma who were affected with at least one significant point in the central 10° were examined in this cross-sectional study. Monocular and binocular random single-eye tests were performed using the imo perimeter and the Humphrey field analyser (HFA) 24-2 and 10-2 tests. The eyes were assigned to ‘better’ and ‘worse’ categories based on the visual acuity and central visual thresholding. Central visual sensitivity results obtained by monocular, binocular random single-eye tests and binocular simultaneous both eye test were compared. Results The average mean deviation with the HFA 24-2 was −5.5 (–1.5, –14.6) dB (median, (IQR)) in the better eyes and −18.0 (–12.9, –23.8) dB in the worse eyes. The mean sensitivity in the central 4 points of the visual field (VF) of the worse eyes was lower when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition. Conversely, this value of the better eyes was greater when measured under the binocular eye condition than under the monocular condition. Conclusions The central sensitivity of the better eyes was better and that of the worse eyes poorer with binocular testing than with monocular testing in patients with glaucoma. Although monocular VF testing is still the most straightforward means to monocularly monitor glaucoma at clinical settings, binocular testing, such as provided with imo perimetry, may be a useful clinical tool to predict the effect of VF impairments on a patient’s quality of visual life.Keywords
Funding Information
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (19K09976)
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Initial Parafoveal Versus Peripheral Scotomas in Glaucoma: Risk Factors and Visual Field CharacteristicsOphthalmology, 2011
- Patients Have Two Eyes!: Binocular versus Better Eye Visual Field IndicesInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 2011
- Glaucoma and Fitness to Drive: Using Binocular Visual Fields to Predict a Milestone to BlindnessInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 2008
- A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damageProgress in Retinal and Eye Research, 2007
- Quantifying Adaptation and Fatigue Effects in Frequency Doubling PerimetryInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 2007
- Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucomaBritish Journal of Ophthalmology, 1998
- Functional status and well-being in patients with glaucoma as measured by the medical outcomes study Short Form-36 questionnaireOphthalmology, 1998
- Glaucoma’s impact on quality of life and its relation to clinical indicators: A pilot studyOphthalmology, 1998
- Failure of rivalry at low contrast: Evidence of a suprathreshold binocular summation processVision Research, 1992
- Binocular contrast summation—I. Detection and discriminationVision Research, 1984