Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 14933
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
ARTICLES
Year : 1982  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 383-386

Static perimetry in glaucoma


M&J Institute of Ophthalmology, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, India

Correspondence Address:
Bakulesh M Khamar
M&J Institute of Ophthalmology Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 7166424

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Khamar BM. Static perimetry in glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol 1982;30:383-6

How to cite this URL:
Khamar BM. Static perimetry in glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 1982 [cited 2020 Aug 3];30:383-6. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?1982/30/4/383/29478

Glaucoma is characterised by elevation of intraocular pressure, cup changes at the optic disc and field changes in form of various field defects.

Demonstration of presence of field defects is very useful in diagnosis of glaucoma in bor­der line cases. It is also useful in management of glaucoma to know the progress of disease whether it is under control or not.

Field defects can be demonstrated most precisely with kinetic and/or static perimetry with help of "Goldmann's Perimeter".

This paper is based on experience gained while performing kinetic and static perimetry in cases of glaucoma.


  Materials and methods Top


i.Selection of cases

Patients selected were known cases of glau­coma or glaucoma suspects in whom field were not plotted.

Patients with any change in media or with retinal pathology were excluded from the study.

Other criteria for including them to study were their willingness to spend approximately 3 hours for one eye, awareness regarding dis­eases and ability to respond.

II. Field Charting

It was done with "Goldmann's Perimeter" under standard conditions.

Kinetic perimetry was first performed then static meridonial perimetry was performed. The meridions were selected from the results of kinetic perimetry as per site of scotomas. When scotomas were not found static perimetry wasperformed on 45°-225° and 135° -315° meri­dions.


  Observations Top


Results obtained are grouped under the headings advantages, pitfalls and disadvantages of static perimetry in comparision to kinetic perimetry and only illustrative examples are given to highlight each of them.

I. Advantages (i) Early diagnosis : - Mr. N. D. M. was a known case of chronic simple glau­coma in right eye. L. E. was found to be nor­mal with kinetic perimetry. On 222° meridion in the static perimetry an absolute scotoma extending from 4° to 8° was seen. There was also irregularity in response suggestive of fla­ttening of curve and partial scotoma on 225° meridion.

Thus static perimetry demonstrated the nerve fiber bundle defect which could not be demonstrated by kinetic perimetry. This de­fect is shown in a chart of kinetic perimetry for orientation.

(ii) Follow up of field :­

Following characteristics defects were seen with static perimetry only.

(a) Increase in width of scotoma [Figure - 2] shows field defect with kinetic perimetry, which were same on follow up examination.

Static perimetry shows increase in scotoma on 165°meridion from 13°sub to 17°, to 12° to 20°.

(b) Increase in depth of scotoma : [Figure - 3] Kinetic & Static perimetry on 270° meridion performed at the same time. In follow up examination only static perimetry revealed in­ crease in depth of scotoma from relative to absolute.

(c) Alteration in curve of static perimetry. [Figure - 4] shows kinetic perimetry which did not change. Static perimetry performed 2 months later shows the flattening of the curve on 135° and 315° meridion making it platu. This is suggestive of inadequate control as it shows de­crease in sensitivity of a particular portion of retina though there is no demonstrable sco­toma.

(d) Appearance of fresh scotomas : [Figure - 5] Like results of kinetic and static perimetry performed for the first time, when it is per­formed in follow up, static demonstrates the field defects mixed by kinetic perimetry.

II. Pitfalls

Pit falls of static perimetry are not inherent in its technique but they are rather due to the methods adopted to perform the static peri­metry i. e. (1) performing the static perimetry in central 30°. (2) Performing the static peri­metry on selected meridions only.

These pit falls are present when it is per­formed for the first time or in follow up exami­nation, but they become most marked during follow up as it fails to show changes that has taken place.

1. Performing the static perimetry in central 30°.

This makes it impossible to show changes in peripheral field i. e. peripheral constriction field.

Peripheral constriction may be the only field defect in glaucoma and under such circums­tances it is likely to be missed if only static perimetry is performed.

In follow up examination also increase in peripheral constriction is missed by static peri­metry. [Figure - 6]

This can be rectified by performing the static perimetry upto the periphery but this makes it more impracticable by consuming more time.

2. Performing the static perimetry on sele­cted meridions only.

This fails to demonstrate field defect that has been taken place in another meridions which are not plotted. This can be overcome by plotting more meridions. But this is at the cost of more time.

III. Disadvantages :­

The main disadvantages of static perimetry in comparision to kinetic perimetry are as follows: -

(i) Time consumption:

Time consumed is far more for static than for kinetic perimetry. When kinetic perimetry alone is performed very precisely it takes about half an hour per eye examination. When static perimetry in 4 meridions is combined with kinetic it takes around three hours per eye examination. Thus it is most extensive in terms of time consumed.

(ii) Tiring of patient

As time consumed by static perimetry is much more than kinetic perimetry and the process performing the static perimetry is repeatative on same lines without any altera­tion it makes patient feel tired. The bordom is to such a great in extent that examination cannot be completed in a patient. This will be evident fro rn the fact that of the 1st 100 eyes only in 28 eyes the examination could be completed.

(iii) Increased resistance from patient for follow up.

All factors contribute to increase in resistance or decrease in co-operation of patients.

This will be evident by the fact that of the first 26 eyes, only in 8 eyes it could be per­formed for the second time.


    Figures

  [Figure - 1], [Figure - 2], [Figure - 3], [Figure - 4], [Figure - 5], [Figure - 6]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Materials and me...
Observations
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1893    
    Printed58    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal