Progression Measurement of Visual Field Loss in Medically Controlled Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma (POAG)
Visual field loss in POAG
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v73i6.8595Keywords:
Glaucoma hemifield test, Mean Deviation, Pattern standard deviation, Primary open-angle glaucomaAbstract
Objective: To determine mean visual field parameters loss (Mean deviation and Pattern standard deviation) and frequency of glaucoma hemifield test to evaluate optic nerve damage progression in medically well-controlled primary open-angle
glaucoma POAG through standard automated perimetry.
Study Design: Prospective longitudinal study.
Place and Duration of Study: Department of Ophthalmology, Rawal Institute of Health Sciences, Islamabad Pajistan, from Sep 2019 to March 2020.
Methodology: Fifty-four patients were inlcuded. Visual field parameters included the Glaucoma hemifield test, Mean
deviation, and Pattern standard deviation. The visual field loss progression was evaluated through Humphry analyzer 30-2.
Follow-up was done on the first day of the presentation, then after three and six months.
Results: We found an increase in intraocular pressure (14.59±1.3 vs 15.87±2.1, p<0.001, 16.44±2.4, p<0.001, Mean deviation (- 9.381±6.5 vs -10.905±8.9, p=0.05, -11.034±9.9=0.05) and Pattern standard deviation (6.158±4.1 vs 6.133±4.3, p<0.001, 6.502±4.2, p<0.001) at 1st day, 3-monthS and 6-monthS respectively. Glaucoma hemifield test was outside normal in 39(72.2%), 45(83.3%), 50(92.6%) patients, borderline in 5(9.3%), 4(7.4%), 2(3.7%) patients, within normal in 6(11.1%), 3(5.6%), 1(1.9%) patient at 1stday, 3-months and 6-months respectively.
Conclusion: Primary open-angle glaucoma patients with medically controlled conditions show an increasing trend in visual
field parameters, including mean standard deviation, pattern standard deviation and glaucoma hemifield test measurement
with the progression of the disease
Downloads
Metrics
References
Jonas JB, Aung T, Bourne RR, Born MA, Ritch R, Panda-Jonas S,
et al. Glaucoma.Lancet 2017; 390(10108): 2183–2193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31469-1
Tham YC, Li X, Wong YT, Quigley AH, Aung T, Cheng Y-C , et
al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma
burden through 2040: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Ophthalmology 2014; 121(11): 2081–2090.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
Khachatryan N, Pistilli M, Maguire GM, Salowe JR, Fertig MR,
Morre T, et al. Primary Open-Angle African American Glaucoma
Genetics (POAAGG) Study: Gender and risk of POAG in African
Americans. PLoS One 2019; 14(8): e0218804.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218804
Taqi U, Fasih U, Jafri AFS, Sheikh A. Frequency of primary open
angle glaucoma in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. J Pak Med
Assoc 2011; 61(8): 778-781.
Unterlauft JD, Bohm MRR. Role of the aging visual system in
glaucoma. Ophthalmologe 2017; 114(2): 108–113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-016-0430-6
Marshall LL, Hayslett LR, Stevens AG. Therapy for Open-Angle
Glaucoma. Consult Pharm 2018; 33(8): 432-445.
https://doi.org/10.4140/tcp.n.2018.432
Yousefi S , Sakai H , Murata H , Fujino Y , Matsuura
M , Garway-Heath D ,et al. Rates of Visual Field Loss in Primary
Open-Angle Glaucoma and Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma:
Asymmetric Patterns. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2018; 59(15):
-5725. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-25140
Helbig C, Wollny A , Altiner A , Diener A,Kohlen J, Ritzke M, et
al. Treatment Complexity in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma
(POAG): Perspectives on Patient Selection in Micro-Invasive
Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) Using Stents. Klin Monbl
Augenheilkd 2021; 238(3): 302-310.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1241-4489
Actis GA,Versino E,Brogliatti B,Rolle T. Risk Factors for Primary
Open Angle Glaucoma (POAG) Progression: A Study Ruled in
Torino. Open Ophthalmol J. 2016; 10(2): 129-139.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101610010129
Naito T,Yoshikawa K,Mizoue S, Nanno M, Kimura T, Suzumura
H, et al. Relationship between progression of visual field defect
and intraocular pressure in primary open-angle glaucoma. Clin
Ophthalmol 2015; 9(3): 1373–1378.
https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s86450
Harwerth RS, Quigley HA. Visual field defects and retinal
ganglion cell losses in patients with glaucoma.Arch Ophthalmol
; 124(6): 853-859.https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.124.6.853
Tripathy K, Sharma YR, Chawla R, Basu K, Vohra R, Venkatesh
P, et al. Triads in Ophthalmology: A Comprehensive
Review. Semin Ophthalmol 2017; 32(2): 237-250.
https://doi.org/10.3109/08820538.2015.1045150
Sit AJ, Pruet CM. Personalizing Intraocular Pressure: Target
Intraocular Pressure in the Setting of 24-Hour Intraocular
Pressure Monitoring. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)v2016 ; 5(1):
-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/apo.0000000000000178
Chen PP , Park JR. Visual field progression in patients with
initially unilateral visual field loss from chronic open-angle
glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2000; 107(9): 1688-1692.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00229-3
Heo WD, Kim NK, Lee WM, Lee BS, Kim SC. Properties of
pattern standard deviation in open-angle glaucoma patients with
hemi-optic neuropathy and bi-optic neuropathy. PLoS One 2017;
(3): e0171960. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171960
Rao HL, Kumar AU, Babu JG, Senthil S, Garudadri CS.
Relationship between severity of visual field loss at presentation
and rate of visual field progression in glaucoma. Ophthalmology
; 118: 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.05.027
Lau LI, Liu CJ, Chou JC, Hsu WM, Liu JH.Patterns of visual field
defects in chronic angle-closure glaucoma with different disease
severity.Ophthalmology 2003; 110(1): 1890–1894.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(03)00666-3
Schiefer U, Papageorgiou E, Sample PA, Pascual JP, Selig B,
Krapp E, et al.Spatial pattern of glaucomatous visual field loss
obtained with regionally condensed stimulus arrangements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51(1): 5685–5689.
https://doi.org/10.1167%2Fiovs.09-5067
Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings
RA.Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension
glaucoma eyes.Ophthalmology 2000; 107(1): 1809–1815.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00284-0
Papp A, Kis K, Németh J. Conversion formulas between
automated-perimetry indexes as measured by two different
types of instrument. Ophthalmologica 2001; 215: 87–90.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
