Evaluation of the flicker defined form test versus matrix, in normal and glaucoma eyes

• Published in: Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) Vol. 90; no. s249
• Main Authors: MAY, F, GIRAUD, JM, FENOLLAND, J, EL CHEHAB, H, SENDON, D, FRANCOZ, M, RENARD, JP
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2012; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Defects; Eyes & eyesight; Ophthalmology
• ISSN: 1755-375X; 1755-3768
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.2656.x

Purpose To evaluate a new perimetric test, the Flicker Defined Form (FDF), and to analyze its capacity to detect visual field defect, comparatively to Matrix, in normal subjects and patients treated for primary angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods Clinical comparative trial including 65 eyes of 35 subjects who performed: clinical examination, measurement of the retinal nerve fiber layer thickness by scanning laser polarimetry GDx‐Pro, standard automated perimetry (SAP) Humphrey SITA 24.2 test, and Matrix 24.2 test; each subject performed SAP, Matrix and FDF two times, and only the second test was used in the study. Subjects were classified in 2 groups. Control group:35 normal eyes, mean age 40,5 years, without any abnormality in GDx‐Pro or SAP. POAG group: 30 eyes, mean age 69,1 years, treated for POAG, and presenting glaucomatous abnormalities in GDx and SAP: 23 early POAG, 4 moderate and 3 advanced. Results Control group: 37% (13/35 eyes) present defects revealed by FDF, and 6% (2/35) by Matrix. FDF defects are significantly more frequent than Matrix defects (Pearson Chi 2 test: p < 0,01); in 8 cases of these 13, defects are extended more than 1 quadrant. POAG group: 87% (26/30 eyes) present defects revealed by FDF, and 90% (27/30) by Matrix; there is no significant difference between the 2 tests (Pearson Chi 2 test: p > 0,9). All moderate and advanced POAG eyes present defects in the both tests. Eyes without defect (FDF or Matrix) are 7 early POAG with mild SAP defects. Conclusion In POAG patients, FDF test and Matrix seem to present high sensibilities: 87% and 90%. Inversely, FDF test specificity is very low, 63%, comparatively to Matrix, 94%, probably in relation with a learning effect.