4.6 Article

Comparing Glaucoma Progression on 24-2 and 10-2 Visual Field Examinations

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127233

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Allergan
  2. Merck
  3. Alcon

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To compare the rate of mean deviation (MD) change on 24-2 versus 10-2 VFs in treated glaucomatous eyes with 5 or more examinations. Methods In a retrospective study, 24-2 and 10-2 VFs of 131 glaucoma patients (167 eyes) who had undergone at least 5 VFs examinations during their follow-up were analyzed. All these patients had VF defects both on 24-2 and 10-2 VFs. Rates of MD change were calculated using best linear unbiased predictions (BLUP). Results Median age, MD on 24-2 VF at baseline, number of VFs performed during follow-up and follow-up duration were 55 years, -16.9 dB, 9 and 9 years respectively. Median rate of MD change was significantly greater (p<0.001) on 10-2 VF (-0.26 dB/year; interquartile range [IQR]: -0.47, -0.11) compared to 24-2 VFs (-0.19 dB/year; IQR: -0.41, -0.03). Comparing the rates of MD change in eyes with different severities of VF loss (early [MD better than -6 dB], moderate [-6 dB to -12 dB], advanced [-12 to -20 dB] and severe [MD worse than -20 dB]) at baseline (based on the MD on 24-2 VF), median rate of MD change was comparable between 10-2 and 24-2 VFs in mild (-0.45 dB/year vs. -0.40 dB/year, P = 0.42) and moderate (-0.32 dB/year vs. -0.40 dB/year, P = 0.26) VF loss categories, while the same were significantly greater on 10-2 VFs in advanced (-0.28 dB/year vs. -0.21 dB/year, P = 0.04) and severe (-0.18 dB/year vs. -0.06 dB/year, P<0.001) VF loss categories. Conclusions In patients with VF defects both on 24-2 and 10-2 VFs, evaluating the rate of MD change on 10-2 VFs may help in better estimation of glaucoma progression, especially so in eyes with advanced glaucoma at baseline.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available