COMPARISON OF HIGH-PASS RESOLUTION PERIMETRY AND STANDARD AUTOMATED PERIMETRY IN GLAUCOMA

PURPOSE: We sought to ascertain whether high pass resolution perimetry would provide results comparable to those of standard perimetry. METH ODS: Thirty-four eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma, 37 eyes suspec ted of having glaucoma, and 36 normal control eyes were matched for ag e and lens density. We controlled for refraction, pupil size, and lear ning effects. Standard and ring visual fields were obtained with the H umphrey perimeter and the Frisen ring perimeter, respectively. Each te st was judged according to the Glaucoma Hemifield Test (a statistical visual field analysis method) to be outside normal limits (abnormal) o r not outside normal limits (normal or borderline). RESULTS: Under the se conditions, both tests identified 19 of 34 (56%) glaucoma eyes as o utside normal limits. High pass resolution perimetry determined that 3 4 of 36 (94%) normal eyes were not outside normal limits; standard per imetry determined that all 36 normal eyes were not outside normal limi ts. High-pass resolution perimetry determined 12 of 37 (32%) eyes that were glaucoma suspects were outside normal limits; standard perimetry determined three of the 37 (8%) glaucoma suspect eyes were outside no rmal limits. Overall agreement between the two tests was 65%. CONCLUSI ON: With the Glaucoma Hemifield Test, high pass resolution perimetry w as comparable to standard perimetry in sensitivity and specificity, an d identified a slightly higher percentage of patients at risk for glau coma as abnormal. These results suggest that high-pass resolution peri metry should continue to be explored as an alternative to standard per imetry for the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma.