Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical experiences with a semi-automated perimeter (Fieldmaster)

  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The perimeter Fieldmaster 101 has been applied to 178 eyes in comparison with a Tuebingen and a Goldmann perimeter. The Fieldmaster allows for a fast and relatively accurate screening test in the detection-phase of perimetry, independently of the skill of the perimetrist. This instrument missed only 2.6% of all pathological fields found by the Goldmann perimeter, and 10% of defective fields taken with the Tuebingen perimeter. In one third of the abnormal findings of the Fieldmaster the defects were even more realistic than in the plots of the Goldmann perimeter, as proven by the static and kinetic fields of the Tuebingen perimeter. The abilities of the Fieldmaster in the assessment-phase of perimetry are limited. Program-operated perimeters like the Fieldmaster are time-saving, but do not replace a perimetrist, especially in the psychological care of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aulhorn, E., H. Harms & H. Karmeyer. The influence of spontaneous eye-rotation on the perimetric determination of small scotomas. Doc. Ophthal. Proc. Series 19: 363–367 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Buchanan, W.S. & J. Gloster. Automatic device for rapid assessment of the central visual field. Brit. J. Ophthal. 49: 57–70 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drance, S.M., M. Fairclough, B. Thomas, G.R. Douglas & R. Suzanna. The early visual field defect in glaucoma and the significance of nasal steps. Docum. Ophthal. Proc. Series 19: 119–126 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Friedmann, A.I. Serial analysis of change in visual field defects employing a new instrument to determine the activity of diseases involving the visual pathways. Acta Opthal., Khb. 152: 1–12 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Greve, E.L. Single and multiple stimulus static perimetry in glaucoma: the two phases of perimetry. Docum. Ophthal. 36: 1–355 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harrington, D.O. & M. Flocks. Multiple pattern method of visual field examination. Arch. Ophthal., Chicago 61: 755–765 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Keltner, J.L., Ch.A. Johnson & F.G. Balestrery. Suprathreshold static perimetry in clinical ophthalmology: initial clinical trials with the Fieldmaster automated perimeter. Arch. Ophthal., Chicago 97: 260–272 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rock, W.J., S.M. Drance & R.W. Morgan. Visual field screening in glaucoma. Arch. Ophthal., Chicago 89: 287–290 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Spahr, J., F. Fankhauser, A. Jenni & H. Bebie. Praktische Erfahrungen mit dem automatischen Perimeter Octopus. Klin. Mbl. Augenheilk. 172: 470–477 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Univertäts Augenklinik, Martinistrasse 52 D-2000, 20, Hamburg, West Germany

    Fritz Dannheim

Authors
  1. Fritz Dannheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Presented in part at the ‘Wiesbadner Tagung’ of the German Ophthalmologists, Nov. 20th – 26th, 1978.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dannheim, F. Clinical experiences with a semi-automated perimeter (Fieldmaster). Int Ophthalmol 2, 11–18 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00149249

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00149249

keywords

Search

Navigation