A comparison of manual kinetic and automated static perimetry in obtaining ptosis fields

Abstract

Objective: To compare examination time and visual field loss for ptosis fields 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) perimetry with the eyelids ptotic and taped into a normal position.

Results: Bilateral examination time for Goldmann fields was 10 +/- 2 minutes 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 degrees +/- 12 degrees untaped for Goldmann perimetry (P<.001), and 38 degrees +/- 8 degrees taped, and 24 degrees +/- 12 degrees untaped for Humphrey perimetry P<.001). Goldmann field loss was 18 degrees +/- 9 degrees (taped minus 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 areas were 5,167 +/- 964 degrees2 taped and 2,830 +/- 1,466 degrees2 untaped (P<.001). Humphrey mean vertical superior hemifield was 37 degrees +/- 9 degrees 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). Mean vertical center of gravity was 23 degrees +/- 3 degrees taped and 16 degrees +/- 5 degrees untaped (P <.001).

Conclusion: Goldmann manual kinetic and Humphrey automated static visual field testing are both effective in documenting ptosis associated visual field loss. Humphrey automated ptosis fields, as performed in this study, require longer examination times than Goldmann manual fields and may be a less sensitive indicator of field loss.