Comparing a head‐mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo compare clinical visual field outputs in glaucoma and healthy patients returned by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and virtual reality (Virtual Field, VF) perimetry.MethodsOne eye of 54 glaucoma patients and 41 healthy subjects was prospectively tested (three times each in random order) using the HFA and VF perimeters (24‐2 test grids). We extracted and compared global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), pointwise sensitivity (and calculated ‘equivalent’ sensitivity after accounting for differences in background luminance) and pointwise defects. Bland–Altman (mean difference [Mdiff] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]) and intraclass correlation analyses were performed.ResultsThe VF test was shorter (by 76 s) and had lower fixation losses (by 0.08) and false‐positive rate (by 0.01) compared to the HFA (all p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlations were 0.86, 0.82 and 0.47 for MD, PSD and pointwise sensitivity between devices, respectively. Test–retest variability was higher for VF (Mdiff 0.3 dB, LoA −7.6 to 8.2 dB) compared to the HFA (Mdiff −0.3 dB, LoA −6.4 to 5.9 dB), indicating greater test–retest variability. When using each device's underlying normative database, the HFA detected, on average, 7 more defects (at the p < 0.05 level) out of the 52 test locations compared to this iteration of VF in the glaucoma cohort.ConclusionsVirtual Field returns global results that are correlated with the HFA, but pointwise sensitivities were more variable. Differences in test–retest variability and defect detection by its current normative database raise questions about the widespread adoption of VF in lieu of the HFA.