Long-Term Follow-up of Glaucomatous Fields by Computerized (OCTOPUS-) Perimetry

  • B. P. Gloor
  • S. A. Dimitrakos
  • P. A. Rabineau


Presented here are evaluations of long-term fluctuations of visual field parameters in cases of POAG and ocular hypertension in four groups of patients examined with the OCTOPUS automated perimeter. The first group consists of 35 patients with POAG, who had been followed between 1978/79 and 1984 over a period of 21 to 70 months with programs 33 and 31. The second group was extracted from the first and consists of 19 patients whose disease course could be followed for at least 6 years (mean = 7.5 years). The third group was taken from a pool of 41 patients established in 1982 as being ocular hypertensives and consisted of 27 patients whose disease course could be followed for at least 6 years (mean = 7.4 years) with programs 33 or 31. The fourth group consists of 17 patients with either ocular hypertension or POAG who could be examined twice with program G-1 with one year intervening.

The following was observed:
  1. 1

    The topographic distribution of losses demonstrated the known preference for the upper visual field half, here especially for the nasal quadrant.

  2. 2

    Four patients from the group with ocular hypertension later developed POAG.

  3. 3

    When the term “Total Loss” is taken as a criterium, no obvious deterioration in the POAG group (group II) was observed.

  4. 4

    From this glaucoma group, a smaller number of patients which had been examined with the normal OCTOPUS strategy (program 31) and by which, therefore, the Mean Sensitivity could be determined, showed a deterioration. With the Fast Strategy of program 33 and using the criterium, “Total Loss” resulting therefrom (displaced 4 dB from the age-adjusted average), the important early changes in the vicinity of the threshold remained concealed. This strategy, like all suprathreshold perimetry, should be avoided in glaucoma cases.

  5. 5

    The evaluation of the disease course is rendered impossible by the considerable long-term fluctuations in individual cases. Only when the regression analysis of observations made over a longer period shows a constant and stable course can judgments be made. They are not permitted from one examination to another.

  6. 6

    Considering the exceptionally slow deterioration, extending over years when the IOP is wellmanaged, an increase in examination frequency above 1 to 2 per year is useless.

  7. 7

    The fluctuations cannot be eliminated, even when applying the Field Indices, which frequently behave counter to one another.

  8. 8

    The old, well-known rule still holds true that visual field findings of glaucoma patients can only be evaluated in combination with other parameters such as the IOP, the papilla, the nerve fiber layer, as well as the general medical situation.



Visual Field Visual Field Defect Ocular Hypertension Loss Variance Field Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bebié H, Fankhauser F (1981) Programm Delta (Manual for use of) Interzeag, SchlierenGoogle Scholar
  2. Cloux-Fey U, Gloor B, Jaeggi P, Hendrickson P (1986) Papille und Gesichtsfeld beim Glaukom. Klin Mbl Augenheilk 189:92–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dimitrakos SA, Fey U, Gloor B, Jaeggi P (1985) Correlation or non-correlation between glaucomatous field loss as determined by automated perimetry and changes in the surface of the optic disc? Greve E, Leydhecker W (eds) The second Symp of the European Glaucoma Society. Junk, The Hague. Doc Ophthal Proc Ser 43:23-33Google Scholar
  4. Failammer J, Drance SM, Zulauf M (1984) Differential light threshold. Short-and long-term fluctuation in patients with glaucoma, normal controls and patients with suspected glaucoma. Arch Ophthal 102:705–706Google Scholar
  5. Flammer J, Jenni F, Bebié H, Keller B (in press) The Octopus glaucoma program G-1Google Scholar
  6. Gloor B (1982) Die Computerperimetrie in der langfristigen Beurteilung des Glaukoms. Krieglstein GK, Leydhecker W (Hrsg) Medikamentöse Glaukomtherapie 59–72. J Bergmann Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  7. Gloor B, Fey U (1985) Erste Gesichtsfeldveränderungen beim Glaukom. Z prakt Augenheilk 6: 365–373Google Scholar
  8. Gloor B, Vökt B (1985) Long-term fluctuations versus actual field loss in glaucoma patients. Dev in Ophthal 12:48–69Google Scholar
  9. Gramer E (1982) Der Informationsgehalt der computergesteuerten Perimetrie für die Diagnostik und Verlaufskontrolle von Augenkrankheiten. Habilitationsschrift WürzburgGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart WM, Becker B (1982) The onset and evolution of glaucomatous visual field defects. Ophthal 89:268–279Google Scholar
  11. Hohnin C, Krakau CET (1982) Regression analysis of the central visual field in chronic glaucoma cases. A follow-up study using automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthal 60:267–274Google Scholar
  12. Mikelberg FS, Douglas GR, Schulzer M, Drance SM, Lau W (1986) The rate of progression of scotomas in glaucoma. Am J Ophthal 101:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Stürmer J (1985) What do glaucomatous visual fields really look like in fine-grid computerized profile perimetry? Dev Ophthal 12:1–47Google Scholar
  14. Stürmer J, Gloor B, Tobler HJ (1984) Wie sehen Glaukomgesichtsfelder wirklich aus? Klin Mbl Augenheilk 184:390–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Werner EB, Saheb N, Thomas D (1982) Variability of static visual threshold responses in patient with elevated IOP’s. Arch Ophthal 100:1627–1631PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. P. Gloor
    • 1
  • S. A. Dimitrakos
    • 1
  • P. A. Rabineau
    • 1
  1. 1.ZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations