험프리 정적시야계와 골드만 동적시야계의 비교: 시야장애평가에서 험프리 정적시야계의 적용

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: In the evaluation of visual field defect, Goldmann kinetic perimetry is the preferred method. However, in many cases, Humphrey static perimetry is performed for visual disability evaluation in Korea. In the present study we investigated the correlation between Goldmann kinetic perimetry and Humphrey static perimetry for disability evaluation using visual field score (VFS). <br /> Methods: This study included 126 eyes, classified into the following groups: 60 eyes, normal group; 11 eyes, contraction of central visual field group; 42 eyes, irregular visual field group; 13 eyes, hemianopsia group. All subjects were examined with Goldmann kinetic perimetry and Humphrey static perimetry. We studied the correlation of the VFS between Goldmann kinetic perimetry and Humphrey static perimetry according to the Korean Academy of Medical Science Guides for Impairment Evaluation (KAMS Guides) and American Medical Association Guides for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides).<br /> Results: Regarding contraction of central visual field group, Goldmann VFS, Humphrey VFS and extended Humphery VFS showed no statistical significance (AMA: p = 0.50, p = 0.30, KMAS: p = 0.36, p = 0.18. respectively). In the irregular visual field and hemianopsia groups, Goldmann VFS and Humphrey VFS showed statistical significance (AMA: p = 0.00, p = 0.00, KMAS: p = 0.00, p = 0.00. respectively). Goldmann VFS and extended Humphrey VFS showed no statistical significance (AMA: p = 0.13, p = 0.12, KMAS: p = 0.08, p = 0.99. respectively).<br /> Conclusions: The contraction of central visual field based on Humphrey static perimetry can be applied to visual disability evaluation. However, in the majority of cases, there is a difference between the two tests and Goldmann kinetic perimetry should be used first in the evaluation of visual field disability evaluation.<br /> J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(12):1907-1917

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정송이, "골드만과 험프리 동적시야검사에 따른 정상시야의 비교" 대한안과학회 50 (50): 904-910, 2009

2 Schiller J, "Quantification of stato-kinetic dissociation by semi-automated perimetry" 46 (46): 117-128, 2006

3 American Medical Association, "Guides to the evaluation of Permanent impairment" AMA Press 267-294, 2001

4 Korean Academy of Medical Science, "Guides for impairment evaluation" 81-95, 2011

5 Mills RP, "Comparison of quantitative testing with the Octopus, Humphrey, and Tübingen perimeters" 102 : 496-504, 1986

6 Katz J, "Automated perimetry detects visual field loss before manual Goldmann perimetry" 102 : 21-26, 1995

7 Trobe JD, "An evaluation of the accuracy of community-based perimetry" 90 : 654-660, 1980

8 Trope GE, "A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma" 71 : 489-493, 1987

9 Beck RW, "A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter" 92 : 77-82, 1985

10 Heijl A, "A clinical comparison of three computerized automatic perimeters in the detection of glaucoma defects" 99 : 832-836, 1981