In a series of 81 cases of pituitary adenoma 345 charts of visual field performed with static automatic perimetry (AP) on the Vision Monitor and Goldmann perimetry (GP) were compared. Generally both methods were equivalent in the detection of chiasmal compression. The charts were divided into two groups: (A) 208 charts and (B) 137 charts according to the number of isoptres investigated: two (V4, 112) or three (V4, 112, 12). In group A the AP was more often altered than the GP, and the difference was statistically significant (p less than 0.001). In group B the GP seemed more effective, but the number of questionable cases was greater and the difference was not statistically significant. When the most internal isoptre of GP was outside the central 30 degrees, AP was more often abnormal (29%) than GP (2.2%), and the difference was statistically significant (chi 2, p less than 0.001). Within the central 30 degrees the GP seemed more often to be altered (23% of cases) than the AP (19.4%), but one-third of the cases were questionable. Within the central 30 degrees both techniques gave identical results and there was no statistically significant difference. The discrepancies between both static and kinetic techniques are an argument for their complementary use.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.