Understanding the role of microperimetry in glaucoma
- PMID: 35094226
- DOI: 10.1007/s10792-021-02203-3
Understanding the role of microperimetry in glaucoma
Abstract
Purpose: The present narrative review attempts to provide an overview on the use of microperimetry or fundus-driven perimetry in glaucoma, considering the clinical use, the different strategies and limits compared to standard automated perimetry.
Methods: An electronic database (PubMed and Medline) search was performed of articles of any type published in the English language between 1998 and 2020 with a combination of the following terms: microperimetry, glaucoma, primary open-angle chronic glaucoma, visual field, Humphrey visual field, fundus automated perimetry.
Results: All the original articles, case reports, and short series analyzed were included in the present review, offering an excursus on the strengths and limitations characterizing the use of microperimetry in glaucomatous patients. The characteristics of a recently introduced fundus-driven perimetry Compass (CMP; Centervue, Padua, Italy) were also included.
Conclusion: Although there remain several contradictions regarding routine use of microperimetry and the restricted research on this topic limits our ability to draw firm conclusions, microperimetry may be preferable in cases of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and normal visual field. However, standard automated perimetry remains the gold standard for monitoring glaucoma, especially in patients with diffuse retinal nerve fiber layer impairment and visual field defects. The newly introduced Compass device can potentially provide a more accurate structural-functional evaluation than standard automated perimetry and can therefore produce superior testing reliability.
Keywords: Fixation stability; Glaucoma; Microperimetry; Retinal sensitivity; Standard automated perimetry.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
References
-
- Scuderi G, Fragiotta S, Scuderi L, Iodice CM, Perdicchi A (2020) Ganglion cell complex analysis in glaucoma patients: what can it tell us? Eye Brain 12:33–44. https://doi.org/10.2147/EB.S226319 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Perdicchi A, Abdolrahimzadeh S, Cutini A, Ciarnella A, Scuderi GL (2016) Evaluation of the progression of visual field damage in patients suffering from early manifest glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol 10:1647–1651. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S113995 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Scuderi GL, Cesareo M, Perdicchi A, Recupero SM (2008) Standard automated perimetry and algorithms for monitoring glaucoma progression. Prog Brain Res 173:77–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(08)01107-2 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Delgado MF, Nguyen NT, Cox TA, Singh K, Lee DA, Dueker DK, Fechtner RD, Juzych MS, Lin SC, Netland PA, Pastor SA, Schuman JS, Samples JR, American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Technology Assessment Committee - Glaucoma P (2002) Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 109: 2362-2374
-
- Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CG, Johnson CA, Liebmann JM, Ritch R (2012) The nature of macular damage in glaucoma as revealed by averaging optical coherence tomography data. Transl Vis Sci Technol 1:3. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.1.1.3 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
