A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtainingptosis fields

Objective: To compare examination time and visual field loss for ptosis fie lds obtained with manual kinetic (Goldmann) perimetry and automated static (Humphrey) perimetry. Methods: Both eyes of 12 patients with bilateral aponeurogenic ptosis were prospectively examined using Goldmann and Humphrey (ptosis protocol) perime try with the eyelids ptotic and taped into a normal position. Results: Bilateral examination time for Goldmann fields was 10 +/- 2 minute s and for Humphrey fields was 50 +/- 10 minutes (P<.001, n = 12). Superior fields at the 12:00 meridian were 46 degrees +/- 6 degrees taped, and 28 de grees +/- 12 degrees untaped for Goldmann perimetry (P<.001), and 38 degree s +/- 8 degrees taped, and 24 degrees +/- 12 degrees untaped for Humphrey p erimetry P<.001). Goldmann field loss was 18 degrees +/- 9 degrees (taped m inus untaped). Humphrey field loss was 14 degrees +/- 13 degrees (P<.04, n = 24). Mean Goldmann radial fields were 56 degrees +/- 6 degrees taped and 39 degrees +/- 13 degrees untaped (P<.001). Goldmann superior hemifield are as were 5167 +/- 964 degrees' taped and 2830 +/- 1466 degrees' untaped (P<. 001). Humphrey mean vertical superior hemifield was 37 degrees +/- 9 degree s taped and 21 degrees +/- 11 degrees untaped (P<.001). Mean sensitivity of Humphrey fields was 15 +/- 3 dB taped and 9 +/- 5 dB untaped (P<.001). Mea n vertical center of gravity was 23 degrees +/- 3 degrees taped and 16 degr ees +/- 5 degrees untaped (P<.001). Conclusion: Goldmann manual kinetic and Humphrey automated static visual fi eld testing are both effective in documenting ptosis associated visual fiel d loss. Humphrey automated ptosis fields, as performed in this study, requi re longer examination times than Goldmann manual fields and may be a less s ensitive indicator of field loss.