RESUMO
Aim and background: Automated perimetry plays an important role in the diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma patients. The purpose of this study is to prospectively determine parity between Humphrey visual field analyzer (HVFA) perimetry (the current gold standard) and the VisuALL virtual reality perimeter (VRP). Materials and methods: In this prospective fully paired diagnostic accuracy study, patients with stable, long-term HVFA visual fields (horizontal dots for ≥4 consecutive visits on progression analysis) with preperimetric, mild, moderate, or severe visual field loss were familiarized with the VRP and then tested using its proprietary software. These results were used for point-by-point comparison with a contemporaneous HVFA test. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America (IRB approval #20-06-002). Results: The prospective study analyzed 43 eyes of 24 glaucoma patients. Spearman's correlation of mean deviation (MD) revealed a strong correlation between HVFA and VRP with rs(41) = 0.871, p < 0.001. The overall mean difference in locus-locus sensitivity between the devices was -0.4 ± 1.5 dB but varied for different visual field locations and glaucoma severity. Conclusion: The parity between the VRP and HVFA was remarkably strong for mild and moderate glaucoma. Given its portability, ease of use, space efficiency, and low cost, the VRP presents a viable alternative. Clinical significance: Automated perimetry, specifically the HVFA, has been the gold standard for visual field assessment since its introduction. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated the advantages of the VRP, allowing for safer visual assessment for both patient and clinician alike. Our study hopes to establish parity between these systems, allowing for the efficient integration of a novel head-mounted perimetry system that can safely diagnose and monitor glaucomatous progression in clinical practice. Precis: Investigation of parity between Olleyes VisuALL virtual reality perimetry (VRP) and existing standard HVFA perimetry is essential to the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. Linear correlations between the two were established from 43 glaucomatous eyes. Parity was strong for mild and moderate glaucoma, presenting VRP as a viable alternative. How to cite this article: Griffin JM, Slagle GT, Vu TA, et al. Prospective Comparison of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2024;18(1):4-9.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Currently, the most accurate staging test for patients with esophageal cancer is endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). At many institutions, patients who have completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for esophageal cancer undergo restaging EUS before proceeding to surgical resection. The benefit of this restaging procedure remains controversial. METHODS: We retrospectively studied consecutive patients who had pre-resection restaging EUS after receiving neoadjuvant treatment to assess accuracy of EUS restaging and determine whether it predicted survival. RESULTS: Final pathologic data were available for 73 patients who underwent restaging EUS (3 patients had missing T or N stage at one time point). Median time from restaging EUS to resection was 20 days. Restaging EUS accurately predicted pathologic T status in 26 of 72 patients (36%), N status in 44 of 71 (62%), and detected a complete pathologic response in 2 of 19 (10.5%). EUS inappropriately classified 10 patients as T0 N0. Agreement between EUS and pathologic staging was poor for T (κ=0.14) and N status (κ=0.24). Median time from resection to death or last follow-up was 20 months. Pathologic T and N status were each significant predictors of survival (p=0.049 and p=0.0004, respectively). There were nonsignificant trends toward better survival for lower EUS T (p=0.32) and N status (p=0.0946). CONCLUSIONS: Restaging by EUS before resection did not accurately predict pathologic stage in patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant treatment. As a result of this investigation, our institution no longer routinely performs restaging EUS.