Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(6) > 1008583

TOOLS
Chung, Lee, Choi, and Park: Comparison of the Normal Visual Fields Between the Goldmann and Humphrey Kinetic Perimetries
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(6):904-910.

Published online: 7 September 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.6.904

Comparison of the Normal Visual Fields Between the Goldmann and Humphrey Kinetic Perimetries

Song Ee Chung, MD1, Sung Jin Lee, MD2, Kyung Seek Choi, MD2, Song Hee Park, MD2

1Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Ophthalmology, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Song Hee Park, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine #657 Hannam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 140-743, Korea Tel: 82-2-709-9356, Fax: 82-2-798-7797, E-mail: scheye@hosp.sch.ac.kr

Received 3 September 2008       Accepted 10 February 2009

Copyright © 2009 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To show Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry can be substituted for Goldmann perimetry, which has been used in the field of disability evaluation field, the differences of normal visual fields between two perimetries were evaluated.

Methods

Goldmann and Humphrey automated kinetic perimetries were performed simultaneously in 70 eyes of 35 normal healthy Koreans who had no specific ophthalmologic disease at 12 meridians; 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 240°, 270°, 300°, and 330°. The mean values of field in each case were compared. In addition, the corrected values were obtained through the calculation of the difference in the two maximal fields.

Results

The visual fields of Humphrey and Goldmann kinetic perimetries showed a similar oval shape, but the fields of Goldmann were statistically significantly wider than the Humphrey fields. As the values of Humphrey were compared with the original data of Goldmann, all values of the visual field were narrow.

Conclusions

The visual fields by Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry were smaller than those by Goldmann perimetry. Therefore, if Humphrey kinetic perimetry is used for the evaluation of visual disability, the visual field should be evaluated after the correction.

Go to : Goto

Keywords: Goldmann perimetry, Humphrey automated perimetry, Kinetic visual field

References

1. Lee SC, Yu SY, Kwak HW. The study of normal visual fields using Goldmann module in OCTOPUS 101 automated perimetry in Koreans. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1123–7.
2. Stewart WC, Shields MB. The peripheral visual field in glaucoma: Reevaluation in the age of automated perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1991; 36:59–69.
crossref
3. Miller KN, Shields MB, Ollie AR. Automated kinetic perimetry with two peripheral isopters in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989; 107:1316–20.
crossref
4. Miller KN, Shields MB, Ollie AR. Peripheral visual field testing by automated kinetic perimetry in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988; 106:202–6.
5. Liu GT, Volpe NJ, Galetta SL. Neuro-Ophthalmology, Diagnosis and Management. Philadelphia: Saunders Co.;2001. p. 46–54.
6. Zingirian M, Gandolfo E, Orciuolo M. Automation of the Goldmann perimeter. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1983; 42:103–7.
crossref
7. Kim DK, Choi KS, Park SH. Usefulness of the Binocular Double Vision Field Using Kinetic Automated Perimetry in Diplopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:1196–203.
8. Kim MH, Lee CS. Studies on the normal visual field of Koreans. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1983; 24:367–78.
9. Trope GE, Britton R. A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987; 71:489–93.
crossref
Go to : Goto

jkos-50-904f1.tif
Figure 1.
One example of Goldmann perimetry (A) and Humphrey kinetic perimetry (B).
undefined
jkos-50-904f2.tif
Figure 2.
Comparison of Goldmann perimetry and Humphrey kinetic perimetry, right eye (A) and left eye (B).
undefined
jkos-50-904f3.tif
Figure 3.
Bland-Altman plot showing the mean values and the error allowance limits of the difference between the values of Goldmann visual field and Humphery visual field.
undefined
Table 1.
Comparison between Goldmann and Humphrey kinetic perimetries (Right eye)
Right (°) GVF* HVF† P‡
0 85.0±2.3 75.0±0.6 .629
30 79.0±2.5 62.0±2.4 .078
60 57.0±2.1 47.9±2.1 .752
90 54.0±2.9 42.0±0.7 .698
120 56.3±2.0 48.0±1.7 .651
150 59.6±0.8 54.6±3.4 .346
180 60.0±1.6 59.0±5.1 <.001
210 63.2±1.0 63.0±4.4 <.001
240 63.7±1.6 62.0±2.7 .004
270 66.0±3.0 59.5±1.5 .413
300 76.6±2.5 65.0±1.5 .653
330 80.0±2.8 75.0±1.6 .317

* GVF=Goldmann visual field (mean± standard deviation)

† HVF=Humphrey visual field (mean± standard deviation)

‡ P=P value, comparison between GVF and HVF (paired t test).

Table 2.
Comparison between Goldmann and Humphrey kinetic perimetries (Left eye)
Left (°) GVF* HVF† P‡
0 60.0±1.1 59.3±3.9 .014
30 58.1±2.0 55.8±3.7 .233
60 53.8±1.4 48.9±1.2 .552
90 53.1±3.4 41.1±1.0 .697
120 61.0±3.1 49.5±2.0 .688
150 74.2±2.3 64.0±1.8 .598
180 83.2±2.3 76.1±1.5 .468
210 79.7±1.9 74.4±1.7 .203
240 76.6±2.0 63.8±1.8 .591
270 69.1±2.2 59.6±1.8 .564
300 64.1±2.8 58.5±1.9 .325
330 60.0±2.0 58.1±3.0 .029

* GVF=Goldmann visual field (mean± standard deviation)

† HVF=Humphrey visual field (mean± standard deviation)

‡ P=P value, comparison between GVF and HVF (paired t test).

Table 3.
Comparison of data from Goldmann, Humphrey kinetic perimetries and McBride's reference values (Right eye)
Right GVF* HVF† McBride‡
Temporal 85.0±2.3 75.0±0.6 85
Superotemporal 68.0±1.8 55.0±2.3 55
Superior 54.0±2.9 42.0±0.7 45
Superonasal 58.0±1.1 51.3±2.6 55
Nasal 60.0±1.6 59.6±0.8 60
Inferonasal 63.4±1.1 62.5±3.6 50
Inferior 66.0±3.0 59.5±1.5 65
Inferotemporal 78.5±2.1 70.0±1.6 65
Total 532.9±11.2 474.9±13.7 ≥ 500

Temporal=0° meridian superotemporal=mean value of 30° and 60° meridian superior=90° meridian superonasal=mean value of 120° and 150° meridian nasal=180° meridian inferonasal=mean value of 210° and 240° meridian inferior=270° meridian inferotemporal=mean value of 300° and 330° meridian.

* GVF=Goldmann visual field (mean± standard deviation)

† HVF=Humphrey visual field (mean± standard deviation)

‡ McBride=reference values of McBride's disability evaluation.

Table 4.
Comparison of data from Goldmann, Humphrey kinetic perimetries and McBride's reference values (Left eye)
Left GVF* HVF† McBride‡
Nasal 60.0±1.1 59.3±3.9 60
Superonasal 56.0±1.3 52.4±2.5 55
Superior 53.1±3.4 41.1±1.0 45
Superotemporal 67.6±2.0 56.8±1.9 55
Temporal 83.2±2.3 76.1±1.5 85
Inferotemporal 78.1±1.7 69.1±1.8 65
Inferior 69.1±2.2 59.6±1.8 65
Inferonasal 62.0±2.1 58.3±2.5 50
Total 529.1±9.9 472.7±16.9 ≥ 500

Nasal=0° meridian superonasal=mean value of 30° and 60° meridian superior=90° meridian superotemporal=mean value of 120° and 150° meridiantemporal=180° meridian inferotemporal=mean value of 210° and 240° meridian inferior=270° meridianinferonasal=mean value of 300° and 330° meridian.

* GVF=Goldmann visual field (mean± standard deviation)

† HVF=Humphrey visual field (mean± standard deviation)

‡ McBride=reference values of McBride's disability evaluation

TOOLS
Similar articles