青光眼患者中MP-1微视野计与自动静态阈值视野计的对比研究

A comparison Study of Micro Perimeter 1 and Conventional Threshold Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients

目的比较MP-1微视野计与自动静态阈值视野计(Humphrey750型)在青光眼中的应用,探讨两种检查手段的关系及二者的优缺点。方法将原发性青光眼患者56例(56眼),分别进行MP-1微视野计(意大利Nidek技术)检查及自动静态阈值视野计(Humphrey750型)检查,将检查结果分为上、下、鼻、颞、中心五个区域并相互对应,进行统计学分析。结果视野的平均光敏感度值(MS1)均比相应的微视野的平均光敏感度值(MS3)高,差值10.34±7.89dB,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);二者的平均光敏感度值具有显著的直线相关性(P<0.01)。青光眼患者均为中心注视,相对稳定者占43%,相对不稳定者占57%。在7例Humphrey750型自动静态阈值视野计检查结果正常的患者中,有6例患者MP-1微视野计检查显示盲点扩大及上方或下方弓形区敏感度下降。在4例晚期青光眼患者中,用Humphrey750型自动静态阈值视野计未检查出视野范围,而在MP-1微视野计中可查出中心管状视野和/或颞侧视岛。结论MP-1微视野计的检查结果与自动静态阈值视野计检查结果一致;其可以作为青光眼患者的检查手段,准确评价患者视功能;亦可以更早地发现青光眼病理改变,所以在青光眼的诊断及视功能评价中,它将有更广阔的应用前景。

PURPOSE To compare the Micro Perimeter 1 （MP-1）with the conventional automated static threshold perimetry （Humphrey 750） in the patients with glaucoma, determine the relation and the advantage of the two instruments. METHODS 56 patients with primary glaucoma were devided into three groups,which included the acute angle closure glaucoma ,chronic angle closure glaucoma and open angle glaucoma. Their static threshold perimetries were performed with the MP-1 Micro Perimeter （Nidek Inc.,Italy） and the Humphrey 750 in the same eye. Differential light sensitivity was compared for 5 matching areas, which are superior area,inferior area,nasal area, temporal area and central area.The results were analized with the SPSSll.5 software. RESULTS The Humphrey showed higher threshold values for the mean sensitivity than the MP-1. The difference was 10.34＋7.89dB, which was significantly different（P〈0.01）. And the mean sensitivity of the two instruments showed significant linear correlation （P〈0.01）. The fixation of all the patients with glaucoma was central fixation,in which about 43% was stable,and 57% was relatively unstable. 7 patients were showed normal in Humphrey 750, but their blind spots were showed en- larged and the light sensitivity were showed decreased in the upper or lower arcuate area in MP-1. The visual fields of 4 patients with end-stage glaucoma couldn＇t be checked out in Humphrey 750,but they showed tubular visual fields and/or temporal fields in MP-1. CONCLUSIONS The results of the two instruments were consistent. So the MP-1 can be a reliable means for the patients with glaucoma. And because it can find the visual field loss in very advanced glaucoma ,the MP-lmay be used more widely in evaluating the visual function.