Heidelberg 24/XI -31

Kirje 24.11.1931

Heidelberg 2/11 -31

Kirje 2.11.1931

Heidelberg 21/XI -31

Kirje 21.11.1931

Heidelberg 6/11 -31

Kirje 6.11.1931

Heidelberg 10/XI -31

Kirje 10.11.1931

Heidelberg 13/11 -31

Kirje 13.11.1931

Heidelberg 17/XI -31

Kirje 17.11.1931

Heidelberg 29/10 -31

Kirje 29.10.1931

Bln 4/12

Kirje Berlin 4.2.1931

Octopus Standard Automated Perimetry, Pulsar Perimetry, Moorfields Motion Displacement Test and Heidelberg Retinal Tomography in Glaucoma Detection - A Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of 4 clinical instruments in the detection of glaucomatous damage. Methods: 102 eyes of 55 test subjects (Age mean = 66.5yrs, range = [39; 89]) underwent Heidelberg Retinal Tomography (HRTIII), (disc area<2.43); and standard automated perimetry (SAP) using Octopus (Dynamic); Pulsar (TOP); and Moorfields Motion Displacement Test (MDT) (ESTA strategy). Eyes were separated into three groups 1) Healthy (H): IOP<21mmHg and healthy discs (clinical examination), 39 subjects, 78 eyes; 2) Glaucoma suspect (GS): Suspicious discs (clinical examination), 12 subjects, 15 eyes; 3) Glaucoma (G): progressive structural or functional loss, 14 subjects, 20 eyes. Clinical diagnostic precision was examined using the cut-off associated with the p<5% normative limit of MD (Octopus/Pulsar), PTD (MDT) and MRA (HRT) analysis. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated for each instrument. Results: See table Conclusions: Despite the advantage of defining glaucoma suspects using clinical optic disc examination, the HRT did not yield significantly higher accuracy than functional measures. HRT, MDT and Octopus SAP yielded higher accuracy than Pulsar perimetry, although results did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are required to investigate the structure-function correlations between these instruments.

Examining the Agreement of Structural Loss Measured With Heidelberg Retinal Tomograhy and Functional Loss With Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP; Octopus), Pulsar Perimetry (PP), and Moorfields Motion Displacement Test (MDT) Perimetry

Purpose: To examine the relationship of functional measurements with structural measures. Methods: 146 eyes of 83 test subjects underwent Heidelberg Retinal Tomography (HRTIII) (disc area<2.43, mphsd<40), and perimetry testing with Octopus (SAP; Dynamic), Pulsar (PP; TOP) and Moorfields MDT (ESTA). Glaucoma was defined as progressive structural or functional loss (20 eyes). Perimetry test points were grouped into 6 sectors based on the estimated optic nerve head angle into which the associated nerve fiber bundle enters (Garway-Heath map). Perimetry summary measures (PSM) (MD SAP/ MD PP/ PTD MDT) were calculated from the average total deviation of each measured threshold from the normal for each sector. We calculated the 95% significance level of the sectorial PSM from the respective normative data. We calculated the percentage agreement with group1 (G1), healthy on HRT and within normal perimetric limits, and group 2 (G2), abnormal on HRT and outside normal perimetric limits. We also examined the relationship of PSM and rim area (RA) in those sectors classified as abnormal by MRA (Moorfields Regression Analysis) of HRT. Results: The mean age was 65 (range= [37, 89]). The global sensitivity versus specificity of each instrument in detecting glaucomatous eyes was: MDT 80% vs. 88%, SAP 80% vs. 80%, PP 70% vs. 89% and HRT 80% vs. 79%. Highest percentage agreement of HRT (respectively G1, G2, sector) with PSM were MDT (89%, 57%, nasal superior), SAP (83%, 74%, temporal superior), PP (74%, 63%, nasal superior). Globally percentage agreement (respectively G1, G2) was MDT (92%, 28%), SAP (87%, 40%) and PP (77%, 49%). Linear regression showed there was no significant trend globally associating RA and PSM. However, sectorally the supero-nasal sector had a statistically significant (p<0.001) trend with each instrument, the associated r2 coefficients are (MDT 0.38 SAP 0.56 and PP 0.39). Conclusions: There were no significant differences in global sensitivity or specificity between instruments. Structure-function relationships varied significantly between instruments and were consistently strongest supero-nasally. Further studies are required to investigate these relationships in detail.

Heidelberg Retina Tomograph in Glaucoma Case-finding

Purpose: To compare the disease classification using optic nerve head imaging against clinical examination combined with perimetry in the case-finding environment.Methods: During a glaucoma screening event at the University Hospital in Lausanne 148 attendees opted to undergo an extended screening exam consisting of perimetry with Octopus (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland), tonometry, gonioscopy, slit-lamp optic nerve head examination and Heidelberg Retinal Tomorgraph (HRT, Heidelberg engineering). Classification criteria of an abnormal clinical exam consisted of a cup to disc ratio > 0.6, other disc abnormality (e.g. notching), closed angles, Van Herrick < ¼ and intraocular pressure >21mmHg. In perimetry a square root loss variance (sLV) >3.0 dB was considered abnormal. Those cases with both an abnormal clinical exam and abnormal perimetric results were considered to be glaucoma suspects. An abnormal HRT exam was a global Moorfields Regression Analysis (MRA) result of "outside normal limits". The results from the worse eye for each instrument are reported.Results: The mean age of the patients was 59.9 years (SD ±14.8years). 46 subjects failed the clinical exam. 55 subjects had sLV>3.0dB. 86 subjects failed one or more of the testing components, 21 subjects failed both the clinical exam and perimetry. Two cases of advanced glaucoma were diagnosed on the day of the event. 20 subjects were referred due to other ocular pathology (10 cataract; 2 AMD; 8 other). 16 subjects were outside normal limits with the HRT, of which 11 failed the clinical exam, 9 failed the perimetric exam and 7 failed all three. HRT had a sensitivity of 33% CI [15%,57%] with a specificity of 93% CI [87%,97%].Conclusions: HRT shows good specificity, however the low sensitivity makes it of limited use in the proposed case finding scenario.