Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Pilot study comparing a new virtual reality-based visual field test to standard perimetry in children.
Mesfin, Yeabsira; Kong, Alan; Backus, Benjamin T; Deiner, Michael; Ou, Yvonne; Oatts, Julius T.
Afiliación
  • Mesfin Y; Department of Ophthalmology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
  • Kong A; Department of Ophthalmology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
  • Backus BT; Vivid Vision Inc, San Francisco, California.
  • Deiner M; Department of Ophthalmology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
  • Ou Y; Department of Ophthalmology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
  • Oatts JT; Department of Ophthalmology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: julius.oatts@ucsf.edu.
J AAPOS ; 28(3): 103933, 2024 Jun.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38729256
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To assess the feasibility and performance of Vivid Vision Perimetry (VVP), a new virtual reality (VR)-based visual field platform.

METHODS:

Children 7-18 years of age with visual acuity of 20/80 or better undergoing Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing were recruited to perform VVP, a VR-based test that uses suprathreshold stimuli to test 54 field locations and calculates a fraction seen score. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate correlation between HVF mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen scores. Participants were surveyed regarding their experience.

RESULTS:

A total of 37 eyes of 23 participants (average age, 12.9 ± 3.1 years; 48% female) were included. All participants successfully completed VVP testing. Diagnoses included glaucoma (12), glaucoma suspect (7), steroid-induced ocular hypertension (3), and craniopharyngioma (1). Sixteen participants had prior HVF experience, and none had prior VVP experience, although 7 had previously used VR. Of the 23 HVF tests performed, 9 (39%) were unreliable due to fixation losses, false positives, or false negatives. Similarly, 35% of VVP tests were unreliable (as defined by accuracy of blind spot detection). Excluding unreliable HVF tests, the correlation between HVF average mean sensitivity and VVP mean fraction seen score was 0.48 (P = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.09-0.74). When asked about preference for the VVP or HVF examination, all participants favored the VVP, and 70% were "very satisfied" with VVP.

CONCLUSIONS:

In our cohort of 23 pediatric subjects, VVP proved to be a clinically feasible VR-based visual field testing, which was uniformly preferred over HVF.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Agudeza Visual / Campos Visuales / Estudios de Factibilidad / Pruebas del Campo Visual / Realidad Virtual Límite: Adolescent / Child / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J AAPOS Asunto de la revista: OFTALMOLOGIA / PEDIATRIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Agudeza Visual / Campos Visuales / Estudios de Factibilidad / Pruebas del Campo Visual / Realidad Virtual Límite: Adolescent / Child / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J AAPOS Asunto de la revista: OFTALMOLOGIA / PEDIATRIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article