To examine performance characteristics of frequency-doubling perimetry (FDP) in comparison with standard automated perimetry (SAP) in patients with resolved optic neuritis in a short-term follow-up study.
Comparative consecutive case series.
Twenty patients with resolved optic neuritis and 20 healthy volunteers participated in this study.
The subjects were patients who recovered normal vision (1.0 or better) after optic neuritis. The Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm 30-2 program was used for SAP and a full-threshold 30-2 program was used for FDP.
Using both forms of perimetry, the mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and the percentage of abnormal points significantly depressed <0.5% in the total deviation probability plot were compared. The visual fields were divided into 5 zones, and the mean sensitivity in each zone in affected eyes was compared with that in healthy eyes of the volunteers within 2 weeks of vision recovery and in follow-up after 2 weeks and 2 and 5 months.
Standard automated perimetry and FDP showed general depression in the fovea and extrafoveal areas. Correlations between SAP and FDP were statistically significant for MD (Pearson r>0.75; P<0.001) and PSD (r>0.6; P<0.005). Defects detected with FDP were larger than with SAP in 14 eyes (70 %). In follow-up after 2 weeks and again after 2 and 5 months, FDP indicated slower improvement in visual field defects in the fovea and extrafoveal areas, whereas SAP indicated rapid improvement in these defects.
Frequency-doubling perimetry is at least comparable with and potentially more sensitive than SAP in detecting visual field defects in resolved optic neuritis. This short-term follow-up study in patients with resolved optic neuritis suggests that FDP detects characteristics of slower recovery more effectively than SAP in the fovea and extrafoveal areas. These properties may allow more accurate detection of visual field defects and may prove advantageous for monitoring of patients with resolved optic neuritis.