gms | German Medical Science

102. Jahrestagung der DOG

Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft e. V.

23. bis 26.09.2004, Berlin

Fundus-controlled perimetry in the diagnostics of macular diseases: MP1 versus SLO

Meeting Abstract

  • corresponding author K. Rohrschneider - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg
  • C. Springer - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg
  • S. Bültmann - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg
  • H. E. Völcker - Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg

Evidenzbasierte Medizin - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. 102. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. Berlin, 23.-26.09.2004. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc04dogP 138

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/de/meetings/dog2004/04dog629.shtml

Veröffentlicht: 22. September 2004

© 2004 Rohrschneider et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielf&aauml;ltigt, verbreitet und &oauml;ffentlich zug&aauml;nglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Objective

The Micro Perimeter 1 (MP1) represents at the moment the only commercial available micro perimeter and enables as well as the scanning laser ophthalmoscope a fundus controlled static threshold perimetry of the central visual field. Purpose of this study was to compare the MP1 fundus perimetry with the already established SLO fundus perimetry concerning detected functional defects, fixation stability and practicability.

Methods

In 57 eyes of 34 patients fundus controlled static threshold perimetry was performed with the MP1 (Nidek, Inc., Italy) and the SLO (Rodenstock, Germany). A comparable number of stimuli, a 4-2-1- test strategy with Goldmann III stimuli and a red background illumination were used. The depth and size of the detected scotomas as well as the stability of fixation were compared.

Results

With a comparable number of stimuli examination time with the MP1 was longer than with the SLO due to the perimetric software. There was a good concordance of perimetric results, while the MP1 showed larger defects (depth and size) in 69% than the SLO did. In 10% the defect was smaller with the MP1 and in 21% the defect appeared equal. A stable fixation was found in 47% (MP1) and 46% (SLO). Visualization of the fundus was better in all eyes with the SLO.

Conclusions

The function of the central retinal can be analyzed with the MP1 as well as with the SLO. The major advantage of the MP1 is an automated real-time alignment during the examination, whereas with the SLO a manual correction of eye movements is necessary. The MP1 offers the possibility to overlay the perimetric results with a color fundus photography. The enlarged field of view of the MP1 enables a perimetry in an area of 36x44 degrees instead of 21x33 degrees with the SLO. Nevertheless, the current software needs improvement before exact measurements of defined retinal diseases is possible.