Background/aims To compare the structure–function relationship between compass microperimetry (CMP; CenterVue, Padova, Italy) and Humphrey field analyser (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA) in open-angle glaucoma (OAG) eyes with myopia.
Methods Circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (cpRNFLT) and visual field (VF) mean sensitivity (MS) were obtained in 90 OAG subjects using the optical coherence tomography, CMP and HFA in a random order. The global and sectoral structure–function relationships between the cpRNFLT and VFMS were assessed with different VF devices (CMP vs HHA) in OAG eyes with and without myopia.
Results Overall, the global and regional structure–function relationships between the two devices did not show significant differences except for the superotemporal sector. In the myopic subgroup, the global association between the average cpRNFLT and VFMSCMP was significantly stronger than that between the average cpRNFLT and VFMSHFA (r=0.806 vs. 0.720, p=0.035). The presence of myopia and higher global cpRNFLT were significantly associated with the greater global VFMS differences between the two devices (p<0.05).
Conclusion In general, structure–function relationship is similar between CMP and HFA in OAG eyes. However, the global structure–function relationship is significantly stronger with CMP than with HFA in OAG eyes with myopia.
Data availability statement
Data are available.
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.
Contributors JWS codesigned the study, analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper. MKS, HJW and YJ monitored the acquisition of and analysed the data. MSK codesigned the study, monitored the acquisition of and analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.