Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2024 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Prospective Comparison of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma

Jeffrey M Griffin, Grant T Slagle, Truong A Vu, Ainsley Eis, William E Sponsel

Keywords : Glaucoma, Humphrey visual field, Perimetry, Virtual reality perimetry, Visual field analysis

Citation Information : Griffin JM, Slagle GT, Vu TA, Eis A, Sponsel WE. Prospective Comparison of VisuALL Virtual Reality Perimetry and Humphrey Automated Perimetry in Glaucoma. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2024; 18 (1):4-9.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1434

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


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.

PDF Share
  1. Beck RW, Bergstrom TJ, Lighter PR. A clinical comparison of visual field testing with a new automated perimeter, the Humphrey field analyzer, and the Goldmann perimeter. Ophthalmology 1985;92(1):77–82. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(85)34065-4
  2. Junoy Montolio FG, Wesselink C, Gordijn M, et al. Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53(11):7010–7017. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-10268
  3. Tsapakis S, Papaconstantinou D, Diagourtas A, et al. Visual field examination method using virtual reality glasses compared with the Humphrey perimeter. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ 2017;11:1431–1443. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S131160
  4. Montelongo M, Gonzalez A, Morgenstern F, et al. A virtual reality-based automated perimeter, device, and pilot study. Trans Vis Sci Tech 2021;10(3):20. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.10.3.20
  5. Ng M, Sample PA, Pascual JP, et al. Comparison of visual field severity classification systems for glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2012;21(8):551–561. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31821dac66
  6. Cirafici P, Maiello G, Ancona C, et al. Point-wise correlations between 10-2 Humphrey visual field and OCT data in open angle glaucoma. Eye 2021;35(3):868–876. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-0989-7
  7. Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, Sahi RK, Kumar S. Validating tablet perimetry against standard Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer for glaucoma screening in Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(1):87–91. Doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1847_19
  8. Lamparter J, Schulze A, Schuff AC, et al. Learning curve and fatigue effect of flicker defined form perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;151(6):1057–1064.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.11.031
  9. Alencar LM, Medeiros FA. The role of standard automated perimetry and newer functional methods for glaucoma diagnosis and follow-up. Indian J Ophthalmol 2011;59(Suppl 1):S53–S58. DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.73694
  10. Hong S, Na K, Kim CY, et al. Learning effect of Humphrey matrix perimetry. Can J Ophthalmol J Can Ophtalmol 2007;42(5):707–711. DOI: 10.3129/i07-135
  11. Goukon H, Hirasawa K, Kasahara M, et al. Comparison of Humphrey field analyzer and imo visual field test results in patients with glaucoma and pseudo-fixation loss. PLoS One 2019;14(11):e0224711. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224711
  12. Nanti NB, Lenoci J. Comparison of virtual reality visual field testing to humphrey visual field testing in an academic ophthalmology practice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2021;62(8):3486.
  13. Stapelfeldt J, Kucur SS, Huber N, et al. Virtual reality-based and conventional visual field examination comparison in healthy and glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2021;10(12):10. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.10.12.10
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.