Semi‐automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry

Abstract

To evaluate the clinical usefulness and reproducibility of (semi-)automated kinetic perimetry of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey field analyzer 3 (HFA3) compared to Goldmann perimetry as reference technique. A prospective interventional study of two study groups, divided into three subgroups. The first study group consisted of 28 patients, performing one visual field examination on each of the three devices. A second group of 30 patients performed four examinations, one on Goldmann and three on Octopus 900 with the following testing strategies: (1) with reaction time (RT) vector, no headphone; (2) without RT vector, no headphone; and (3) without RT vector, with headphone. Comparisons for V4e and I4e stimuli were made of the mean isopter radius (MIR) and of the distances of the isopter to the central visual axis in four directions. Statistical analysis was made with the R software version 3.2.2. For V4e stimuli, the mean isopter radius showed no statistic significant difference comparing Goldmann to HFA3 [p-value=0.144; confidence interval (CI) -0.152 to 0.019] and comparing Goldmann to Octopus 900 without RT vector, either with (p-value=0.347; CI -0.023 to 0.081) or without headphone (p-value=0.130; CI -0.011 to 0.095). Octopus 900 with RT vector produced a significantly larger MIR for V4e stimuli in comparison to Goldmann (p-value<0.001). I4e stimuli produced statistically significantly larger visual field areas when comparing HFA3 and Octopus 900 to Goldmann perimetry. Humphrey field analyzer 3 and Octopus 900 without RT vector are promising successors of Goldmann perimetry.