Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population

Fiona J Rowe (1) , Henri M Sueke (2) , Sandra D Gawley (2)

1 University of Liverpool
2 Warrington Hospital

Background/aims: The purpose was to evaluate patient's ease of understanding of Damato campimetry assessment and determine sensitivity and specificity of results compared to Humphrey automated perimetry. Methods: Patients underwent Humphrey perimetry and Damato campimetry on the same day. Patients were excluded if unable to undergo Humphrey perimetry. Results were graded as matched, partially matched and not matched with those of Humphrey perimetry. Results: 100 patients (197 eyes) were assessed: 62 females and 38 males with mean age of 62.8 Years (SD 15.98). It was not possible to plot Damato campimetry in 19 eyes; 13 due to lack of understanding and 6 due to low vision. 178 eyes were tested with both methods. Results showed 94 eyes as true positives, 31 true negatives, 22 false negatives and 31 false positives. False positives included 14 eyes with only peripheral points involved on Damato campimetry. 95 eyes had matched visual field results, 5 partial matches and 78 eyes not matched. Conclusions: We found Damato campimetry to be a useful portable device to assess the visual field with optimal sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 72%. 6.5% were unable to do the test. 64% had matched or partially matched results from both assessments.

Mots clés: Diagnostic tests/Investigation; Field of vision

Fiona J Rowe, Henri M Sueke, Sandra D Gawley. Comparison of Damato campimetry and Humphrey automated perimetry results in a clinical population. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 2010, 94 (6), pp.757. ⟨10.1136/bjo.2009.161240⟩. ⟨hal-00557324⟩