Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from a Tablet Perimeter, Smart Visual Function Analyzer, and Humphrey® Field Analyzer (HFA™)

AUTHORS:

Kang J, De Arrigunaga S, Freeman SE, Zhao Y, Lin M, Liebman DL, Roldan AM, Kim JA, Chang DS, Friedman DS, Elze T.

PUBLICATION:

Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2023 Mar 12:S2589-4196(23)00059-5. Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2023 Sep-Oct;6(5):509-520. doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2023.03.001. Epub 2023 Mar 12

Study Purpose

To compare tablet and Smart Visual Function Analyzer results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program

Overview

Study Design

    Observational, cross-sectional study

# of Eyes/
Patients

133 eyes of 79 patients, including glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertension, and glaucoma patients

Study Device

  • IMO Smart Visual Function Analyzer (referred to as IMOvifa SVFA)*
  • Humphrey® Field Analyzer (HFA™)
  • Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF)

Outcome Measures

Primary: Mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity

Results

  • The mean difference in MD between HFA 24-2 SITA-Standard and IMOvifa 24-2 AIZE was 0.24 dB, 95% confidence interval (-0.16 dB, 0.63 dB), P=0.237. The mean difference in MD between HFA and MRF was 0.03 dB, 95% CI (-0.36 dB, 0.42 dB), P=0.89 (Figure 1)
  • There was no significant difference in PSD between HFA and IMOvifa,
  • however, MRF reported a mean PSD value that was 0.64 dB greater than that of HFA (95% CI = 0.27 dB to 1.02 dB, P<0.001) (Figure 1)
  • Point-by-point sensitivities on IMOvifa and MRF tablet differed from those of
  • HFA at 39 and 36 locations, respectively. On average, the sensitivity values of the HFA were 1.2 dB higher than the sensitivity values of the IMOvifa throughout the field. Compared to HFA, MRF reported greater sensitivity values in the nasal field and lower sensitivity values in the temporal field with differences up to 6.5 dB in some locations

IMOvifa reduced measurement time by

39%

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Boxplot comparing the mean deviation (MD) and PSD for the HFA, SVFA, and tablet, with pairwise significance shown. Adapted from Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2023 Mar 12:S2589- 4196(23)00059-5. Epub ahead of print.

Conclusions

IMO Smart Visual Function Analyzer provided comparable mean deviation and pattern standard deviation values to those of Humphrey Field Analyzer for glaucoma patients. Relative to HFA, IMOvifa underestimated light sensitivity but its results were more similar to HFA results than MRF.

Product Comparison

Rotary Prism
Autorefraction

Keratometry

Auto Measure

Auto Right/Left

Full Auto
Align/Measurement

Rotary Prism
Autorefraction

Keratometry

Corneal Topography

Auto Measure

Auto Right/Left

Full Auto
Align/Measurement

Rotary Prism
Autorefraction

Keratometry

Auto Measure

Size and Weight

Height
XX Inches

Width
XX Inches

Depth
XX Inches

Weight
XX Pounds

Height
XX Inches

Width
XX Inches

Depth
XX Inches

Weight
XX Pounds

Height
XX Inches

Width
XX Inches

Depth
XX Inches

Weight
XX Pounds

Lorem Ipsum

X.X”

360° Rotating
Touchscreen

Control Lever

X.X”

LCD Screen Panel

Wavefront

Control Lever

8.5″

LCD Screen Panel

Lorem Ipsum

EMR

EMR Connectivity

Corneal Aberrometry

Ocular Aberrometry

Pupillometry

Tear Film Assessment

Viewer Software Available

EMR

EMR Connectivity

EMR

EMR Connectivity

The Topcon Healthcare Ophthalmology Solution

Lorem ipsum dolor sit, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy.

The Topcon Healthcare Myopia Solution

Lorem ipsum dolor sit, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy.

Fundus Cameras

Lorem ipsum dolor sit, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy.

Fundus Cameras

Lorem ipsum dolor sit, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy.