J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2009 Jun;50(6):904-910. 10.3341/jkos.2009.50.6.904.

Comparison of the Normal Visual Fields Between the Goldmann and Humphrey Kinetic Perimetries

• Chung SE
• Lee SJ
• Choi KS
• Park SH

• KMID: 2212369
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.6.904

Abstract

PURPOSE: To show Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry can be substituted for Goldmann perimetry, which has been used in the field of disability evaluation field, the differences of normal visual fields between two perimetries were evaluated.
METHODS
Goldmann and Humphrey automated kinetic perimetries were performed simultaneously in 70 eyes of 35 normal healthy Koreans who had no specific ophthalmologic disease at 12 meridians; 0degrees, 30degrees, 60degrees, 90degrees, 120degrees, 150degrees, 180degrees, 210degrees, 240degrees, 270degrees, 300degrees, and 330degrees. The mean values of field in each case were compared. In addition, the corrected values were obtained through the calculation of the difference in the two maximal fields.
RESULTS
The visual fields of Humphrey and Goldmann kinetic perimetries showed a similar oval shape, but the fields of Goldmann were statistically significantly wider than the Humphrey fields. As the values of Humphrey were compared with the original data of Goldmann, all values of the visual field were narrow.
CONCLUSIONS
The visual fields by Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry were smaller than those by Goldmann perimetry. Therefore, if Humphrey kinetic perimetry is used for the evaluation of visual disability, the visual field should be evaluated after the correction.

Keyword

Goldmann perimetry; Humphrey automated perimetry; Kinetic visual field

MeSH Terms

Disability Evaluation
Eye
Visual Field Tests
Visual Fields

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. One example of Goldmann perimetry (A) and Humphrey kinetic perimetry (B).

• 

  Figure 2. Comparison of Goldmann perimetry and Humphrey kinetic perimetry, right eye (A) and left eye (B).

• 

  Figure 3. Bland-Altman plot showing the mean values and the error allowance limits of the difference between the values of Goldmann visual field and Humphery visual field.

Reference

References

1. Lee SC, Yu SY, Kwak HW. The study of normal visual fields using Goldmann module in OCTOPUS 101 automated perimetry in Koreans. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1123–7.

2. Stewart WC, Shields MB. The peripheral visual field in glaucoma: Reevaluation in the age of automated perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol. 1991; 36:59–69.

3. Miller KN, Shields MB, Ollie AR. Automated kinetic perimetry with two peripheral isopters in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989; 107:1316–20.

4. Miller KN, Shields MB, Ollie AR. Peripheral visual field testing by automated kinetic perimetry in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988; 106:202–6.

5. Liu GT, Volpe NJ, Galetta SL. Neuro-Ophthalmology, Diagnosis and Management. Philadelphia: Saunders Co.;2001. p. 46–54.

6. Zingirian M, Gandolfo E, Orciuolo M. Automation of the Goldmann perimeter. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser. 1983; 42:103–7.

7. Kim DK, Choi KS, Park SH. Usefulness of the Binocular Double Vision Field Using Kinetic Automated Perimetry in Diplopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:1196–203.

8. Kim MH, Lee CS. Studies on the normal visual field of Koreans. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1983; 24:367–78.

9. Trope GE, Britton R. A comparison of Goldmann and Humphrey automated perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987; 71:489–93.