The Feasibility of Short Automated Static Perimetry in Children
Overview
Affiliations
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of short automated static perimetry using tendency-oriented perimetry in the pediatric population.
Design: Prospective observational case series.
Participants: Fifty normal children age 6 through 12 years.
Testing: Subjects underwent testing with the Octopus TOP-32 program on the Octopus 1-2-3 automated perimeter. Testing was performed in a typical clinical setting without adaptations to the perimeter, prolonged training, or the use of custom seating. Each eye was tested twice.
Main Outcome Measures: Ability to complete automated static perimetry tests with both eyes. Mean sensitivity, mean defect, and loss of variance; gray scale and numeric representations of the field; duration of each test and of the entire session; subjective assessment of each test as normal or abnormal; calculation of test specificity. Comparisons by age and test number were performed.
Results: All subjects successfully completed all four tests. The mean duration for each test was 2:30+/- 0.23 minutes. The average time for the whole session, including training, testing both eyes twice, and rest periods, was 25.8+/-4.87 minutes. Improvement in the specificity of the test (fewer abnormal tests in normal children) occurred in direct relation to subject age (R = 0.5).
Conclusions: Automated static perimetry using short, tendency-oriented programs can be successfully performed in normal children age 6 through 12 years in a typical clinical setting. Age was the best predictor of the mean sensitivity, reproducibility, and accuracy of the test, with the most reliable results obtained after 7 years of age. In children 6 to 7 years old, significant interindividual variability was present, and testing success was more dependent on the child's maturity and ability to concentrate. Short automated perimetry seems to be a promising tool for the evaluation of peripheral vision in pediatric patients.
Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome in the pediatric population: A review.
Khandwala N, Ramappa M, Edward D, Mocan M Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2024; 13(4):417-424.
PMID: 38249500 PMC: 10798402. DOI: 10.4103/tjo.TJO-D-23-00089.
Portengen B, Porro G, Bergsma D, Veldman E, Imhof S, Naber M Eye Brain. 2023; 15:77-89.
PMID: 37287993 PMC: 10243349. DOI: 10.2147/EB.S409905.
Maintaining fixation by children in a virtual reality version of pupil perimetry.
Portengen B, Naber M, Jansen D, van den Boomen C, Imhof S, Porro G J Eye Mov Res. 2023; 15(3).
PMID: 37091859 PMC: 10115433. DOI: 10.16910/jemr.15.3.2.
Evaluation of Virtual Reality Perimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Normal Children.
Groth S, Linton E, Brown E, Makadia F, Donahue S Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2023; 12(1):6.
PMID: 36598458 PMC: 9832716. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.12.1.6.
Gestefeld B, Marsman J, Cornelissen F Front Med (Lausanne). 2021; 8:689910.
PMID: 34746166 PMC: 8566763. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.689910.