Agreement Between Virtual Reality Perimetry and Static Automated Perimetry in Various Neuro-Ophthalmological Conditions: A Pilot Study

ABSTRACT

Our objective was to compare the agreement between virtual reality perimetry (VRP) (order of magnitude, OM) and static automated perimetry (SAP) in various neuro-ophthalmological conditions. We carried out a retrospective analysis of visual field plots of patients with various neuro-ophthalmological conditions who underwent visual field testing using VRP and SAP and between 1 January and 31 May 2022. Two fellowship-trained neuro-ophthalmologists compared the visual field defects observed on both devices. Per cent agreement was used to compare the interpretation of the two examiners on both techniques. The study criteria were met by 160 eyes from 148 patients (mean age 44 years, range 17–74 years). The most common aetiologies were optic atrophy due to various causes, optic neuritis, ischaemic optic neuropathy, and compressive optic neuropathy. Overall, we found good agreement between VRP and SAP for bitemporal (93.8%), hemianopic (90.8%), altitudinal (79.4%), and generalised visual field defects (86.4%). The agreement was acceptable for central/centrocaecal scotomas and not acceptable for enlarged blind spots. Between the two examiners there was good agreement for bitemporal (92.3%), hemianopic (82%), altitudinal (83%), and generalised field defects (76.4%). The results of our study suggest that VRP gives overall good agreement with SAP in various neuro-ophthalmological conditions, especially those likely to produce hemianopic, altitudinal, and generalised visual field defects. This could be useful in various settings; however, future larger studies are needed to explore real-world utilisation.

KEYWORDS:

• Agreement
• virtual reality
• perimetry
• standard automated perimetry
• neuro-ophthalmology

View correction statement:

Correction

Acknowledgments

We thank our optometry team members (namely Masuma, Fatima, Aleena Saji, Gowthami Neredimilli, Mounika Vadithya, and Saurav Ghosh, who helped us with enrolment of the patients, and collected the data), and our team at Centre for Technology Innovation, who helped with various technical aspects.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01658107.2024.2313445)

Additional information

Funding

This study is supported by the intramural funding provided by Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation.