A comparison of tangent screen, Goldmann, and Humphrey perimetry in the detection and localization of occipital lesions

• Published in: Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.) Vol. 107; no. 3; pp. 527 - 544
• Main Authors: Wong, Agnes M.F, Sharpe, James A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.03.2000; Elsevier
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biological and medical sciences; Cerebral Infarction - diagnosis; Female; Humans; Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Occipital Lobe - pathology; Optic Chiasm - pathology; Prospective Studies; Vision Disorders - diagnosis; Visual Field Tests - methods; Visual Fields; Visual Pathways - pathology; Human; Nervous system diseases; Infarct; Visual field; Deficiency; Cardiovascular disease; Perimetry; Cerebral disorder; Occipital lobe; Vascular disease; Eye disease; Visual field disease; Diagnosis; Technique; Comparative study
• DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)00092-5
• ISSN: 0161-6420

To compare manual kinetic perimetry with tangent screen and Goldmann techniques and automated static perimetry with the Humphrey Field Analyzer in the detection and localization of occipital lobe lesions. Prospective consecutive comparative case series. Twelve patients with well-defined occipital lobe infarcts on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging were studied. The patients were tested by tangent screen, Goldmann, and Humphrey perimetry (central 30-2 threshold program). The three visual fields were compared and correlated with MR images. All three perimetric techniques detected the presence of postchiasmal lesions. However, localization of lesions differed with perimetric technique. Visual fields obtained from tangent screen and Goldmann perimetry were similar and corresponded well with the location of lesions on MR images in all 12 patients. Humphrey perimetry inaccurately localized the lesion to the proximal part of the postchiasmal pathway by revealing incongruous fields in two patients, failed to detect sparing of the posterior occipital cortex or occipital pole in four patients, and estimated a larger extent of damage in one patient when compared with MR images and manual perimetry. All three perimetric techniques are satisfactory screening tests to detect occipital lesions. However, tangent screen and Goldmann perimetry provide information about the location and extent of lesions that is more consistent with prevailing knowledge of the effects of the lesion in the postgeniculate visual pathway.