Fundus perimetry with the Micro Perimeter 1 in normal individuals: comparison with conventional threshold perimetry.

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 5.56). 06/2005; 112(5):848-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.11.051
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine differential light threshold values obtained with the Micro Perimeter 1 (MP1) in healthy volunteers and to correlate them with conventional automated static threshold perimetry using the Octopus 101 Perimeter.
Prospective comparative observational study.
Thirty healthy volunteers.
In 30 eyes of 30 healthy volunteers, static threshold perimetry was performed with the MP1 Micro Perimeter (Nidek Inc., Italy) and the Octopus 101 (Haag-Streit AG, Switzerland) in the same eye in random order.
Differential light threshold values obtained with the MP1 and their difference to differential light threshold values with the Octopus. Differential light sensitivity was compared for 21 matching points in a rectangular test grid using similar examination settings with Goldmann III stimuli, stimulus presentation time of 100 msec, and white background illumination (1.27 cd/m2).
For the 21 matching locations, mean differential light thresholds with the MP 1 and the Octopus were 15.5+/-0.8 decibels (dB) (range, 13.0-17.1) and 30.2+/-1.2 dB (range, 27.7-32.0), respectively. On the average, the Octopus showed higher threshold values for all test locations than the MP1. The mean difference between both examinations was 14.6+/-1.8 dB for all locations and 14.8+/-1.7 dB excluding the test locations at the blind spot. With a considerably high grade of variation according to the test point location, the difference between the 2 devices varied from 11.4 to 18.3 dB, showing a vertical asymmetry with a larger difference in the lower part of the visual field. Linear regression of the perimetric results for each test point location, excluding the area of the blind spot and the lower line of the test grid, showed significant correlation (r = 0.56; P = 0.036).
The results show that the MP1 provides reproducible threshold values with a systematic difference compared with standard Octopus perimetry of approximately 15 dB. With a larger difference in the lower part of the visual field, differential light sensitivity values in microperimetry with the MP1 are comparable to the threshold values obtained with the Octopus 101 using a correction factor of 11.4 to 18.3 dB according to stimulus location.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effect of low-fluence photodynamic therapy (PDT) on central retinal sensitivity and fixation stability as compared with standard-fluence PDT for treating chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC). Prospective longitudinal follow-up of patients enrolled in a nonrandomized clinical trial of standard-fluence vs low-fluence PDT in chronic CSC. Forty-two eyes (42 patients) with chronic CSC were enrolled; 19 eyes received indocyanine green angiography-guided standard-fluence PDT (50 J/cm(2)) and 23 received indocyanine green angiography-guided low-fluence PDT (25 J/cm(2)). Retinal sensitivity in the central 12 degrees and fixation stability were evaluated by MP-1 microperimeter at baseline and at 3 and 12 months after PDT. Mean central retinal sensitivity improved significantly at all time points (at 12 months vs baseline P < .01, Tukey-Kramer test), in the standard-fluence group from 11.9 to 14.4 at 12 months, and in the low-fluence-group from 11.8 to 16.3, with a significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .04, t test). Fixation stability did not change in either group (not significant, analysis of variance). At 12 months' follow-up the retinal sensitivity significantly correlated with best-corrected visual acuity in both groups (standard-fluence, r = -0.52, P = .02; low-fluence, r = -0.54, P = .01). The study shows a significant improvement in macular sensitivity after PDT in eyes with chronic CSC, with greater efficacy in low-fluence-treated eyes. Microperimetry data suggest that low-fluence PDT may be a good treatment option in patients with chronic CSC.
    American Journal of Ophthalmology 03/2011; 151(6):953-960.e2. · 4.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the retinal sensitivity measurements obtained with two microperimeters, the Micro-Perimeter 1 (MP-1) and the Optos optical coherence tomography (OCT)/scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) in subjects with and without maculopathies.
    Transl Vis Sci Technol. 09/2014; 3(5):eCollection.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:: To determine if epimacular brachytherapy is associated with reduced retinal sensitivity or choroidal nonperfusion. METHODS:: A prospective intervention case series of 12 participants with neovascular age-related macular degeneration requiring frequent ranibizumab underwent vitrectomy and epimacular brachytherapy. The Strontium 90/Yttrium 90 source delivered a single 24-Gy dose at the center of the treatment zone. The dose attenuated with increasing distance from the source. Microperimetry and indocyanine green angiography were performed at baseline and 12 months. The main outcome measures were mean sensitivity and choroidal nonperfusion. A linear mixed model was used to assess the association between the dose of radiation and the change in mean sensitivity. RESULTS:: Mean visual acuity remained within 1 letter of baseline at 12 months (-0.33 ± 13.2 letters). There was no statistically significant change in mean sensitivity within the neovascular age-related macular degeneration lesion area (gain of 0.94 ± 3.25 dB; P = 0.339) or in neighboring unaffected retina (0.66 ± 4.14 dB; P = 0.594), defined using fluorescein angiography. Within the lesion area, mean sensitivity improved by an average of 0.23 ± 0.16 dB (P = 0.006) for every additional gray of radiation received. Indocyanine green angiography failed to demonstrate any choroidal nonperfusion or radiation damage at 12 months after the treatment. CONCLUSION:: Stable retinal sensitivity in areas not manifestly affected by neovascular age-related macular degeneration suggests that epimacular brachytherapy does not damage retinal function. The presence of a dose response suggests that the positive effect of epimacular brachytherapy relates more to beta irradiation than vitrectomy.
    Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) 03/2013; · 2.93 Impact Factor