Comparison of perimetric 24‐2 and 30‐2 test patterns in detecting visual field defects in patients with tumours in the pituitary region

Abstract

AbstractPurposeAutomated perimetry provides a standardized method of measuring the visual field. The Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) uses the 24‐2 test pattern to cover 24 degrees centrally or the 30‐2 test pattern to cover a slightly broader region of 30 degrees. The aim of this study was to determine whether the 24‐2 test pattern provides comparable information to the 30‐2 test pattern in detecting visual field defects in patients with tumours in the pituitary region.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was carried out on patients with tumours in the pituitary region and radiologically confirmed compression of the visual pathway. Included patients (79 of 133) had been examined using the Humphrey 30‐2 visual field test, after which the 30‐2 test patterns were reduced into corresponding 24‐2 test patterns. The location of visual field defects, visual acuity and the perimetric parameters mean deviation (MD) and visual field index (VFI) were also recorded.ResultsNo patient was classified differently when evaluated with the 24‐2 test pattern, compared to the 30‐2 test pattern. Interestingly, although the majority of patients had visual field defects located in the temporal visual field of each eye, a significant minority did not. In addition, it was found that a large proportion of patients had normal visual acuity (≥0.8).ConclusionsThe use of the HFA 24‐2 test pattern reliably detected visual field defects in patients with tumours in the pituitary region. The present study indicates that MD and VFI are not reliable parameters for evaluating visual field defects due to compression.