Measuring Visual Fields in Children With Glaucoma Using a Portable Tablet.

Purpose: To compare perimetric outcomes of an iPad perimetry app (Melbourne Rapid Fields [MRF]) with those of the Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) testing children with glaucoma. Methods: Sixteen children diagnosed and treated for glaucoma were recruited to evaluate their perimetric performance over two visits. At each visit, they undertook visual field assessment using the MRF application as well as the HFA. The HFA test was part of their usual clinical work up and a clinical assistant judged which test format (24-2 SITA standard or SITA fast) might be suited to the testing of that child. The primary outcome measure was the association and repeatability of mean deviation (MD) for the MRF and HFA tests, by way of regression, intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. Secondary measures were comparisons of pattern deviation indices, test times as well as an indication of participant test preference. Summary data show means ± standard deviation. Results: The age for our cohort was 7 to 15 years of age (mean, 10.0 ± 2.4 years of age). The MRF MD was in close concordance to HFA MD with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.95). Bland-Altman analysis found little bias (-0.6 dB) and a 95% coefficient of repeatability of 2.1 dB in eyes having a normal HFA MD. In eyes with glaucomatous visual field defects the 95% coefficient of repeatability at retest was much larger for both the MRF (10.5 dB) as well as for the HFA (10.0 dB). Average MRF test times (5.6 ± 1.2 minutes) were similar to SITA Fast (5.4 ± 1.9 minutes) with both being significantly faster than SITA standard (8.6 ± 1.4 minutes; P < 0.001). All children chose testing with the MRF as their preference. Conclusions: MRF correlated strongly with HFA and was preferred by the children over the HFA. MRF is suitable for perimetric evaluation of children with glaucoma. Translational Relevance: This study finds that an iPad based visual field test can be used with children having glaucoma to yield outcomes similar to SITA-fast. Children indicate a preference for such testing.

Optic disc evaluation in optic neuropathies: the optic disc assessment project.

OBJECTIVE: Optic nerve morphology is affected by genetic and acquired disease. Glaucoma is the most common optic neuropathy; autosomal-dominant optic atrophy (ADOA) and Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) are the most prevalent hereditary optic neuropathies. These 3 entities can exhibit similar topographical changes at the optic nerve head. Both ADOA and LHON have been reported to be misdiagnosed as glaucoma. Our aim was to determine whether glaucoma subspecialists and neuro-ophthalmologists can distinguish these diagnoses on optic disc assessment alone. DESIGN: Observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three optic nerve experts. METHODS: We randomized and masked 60 high-resolution stereoscopic optic disc photographs (15 ADOA images, 15 LHON, 15 glaucoma, and 15 normal controls). Experts were asked to assess the discs on 12 conventional topographic features and assign a presumptive diagnosis. Intra- and interanalysis was performed using the index of qualitative variation and absolute deviation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Can glaucoma specialists and neuro-ophthalmologists distinguish among the disease entities by optic nerve head phenotype. RESULTS: The correct diagnosis was identified in 85%, 75%, 27%, and 16% of the normal, glaucoma, ADOA, and LHON disc groups, respectively. The proportion of correct diagnoses within the ADOA and LHON groups was significantly lower than both normal and glaucomatous (P<0.001). Where glaucoma was chosen as the most likely diagnosis, 61% were glaucomatous, 34% were pathologic but nonglaucomatous discs, and 5% were normal. There was greater agreement for individual parameters assessed within the normal disc set when compared with pathologic discs (P<0.05). The only parameter to have a significantly greater agreement within the glaucomatous disc set when compared with ADOA or LHON disc sets was pallor, whereby experts agreed on is absence in the glaucomatous discs but were not in agreement on its presence or its absence in the ADOA and LHON discs (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Optic neuropathies can result in similar topographic changes at the optic disc, particularly in late-stage disease, making it difficult to differentiate ADOA and LHON from glaucoma based on disc assessment alone. Other clinical parameters such as acuity, color vision, history of visual loss, and family history are required to make an accurate diagnosis.