통합된 두 눈 시야와 한 눈 시야의 Mean Deviation 비교

목적: 통합된 두 눈 시야와 한 눈 시야의 mean deviation (MD)을 비교하고자 하였다. 대상과 방법: 적어도 한 눈을 녹내장으로 진단받은 36명의 30도 시야에서 두 눈이 서로 대응되는 72곳의 역치값을 대상으로 추가의 검사 없이 두 눈 시야를 예측할 수 있는 Best location법과 Binocular summation법을 이용하여 통합된 두 눈 시야의 MD를 계산하였다. 두 눈 중 좋은 눈과 반대편 나쁜 눈의 MD와 각각 비교하고, 실제 두 눈 시야검사를 시행한 11명의 MD와도 비교하였다.결과: Best location과 Binocular summation에 의해 계산된 MD는 서로 유의한 차이를 보였으나(각각 -1.7dB, -2.0dB, p=0.045), 두 방법 모두 좋은 눈의 MD보다 좋은 값을 보였다(-1.7 vs -2.3, -2.0 vs -2.3, 각 p＜0.01). 두 통합법에 의해 계산된 MD는 실제 두눈 시야의 MD와 유의한 차이가 없었다(-1.9 vs -2.0, -2.3 vs -2.0, 각 p＞0.1). 결론: 통합된 두 눈 시야의 MD는 좋은 눈의 MD보다 좋으며 이는 녹내장 환자를 평가하고 치료함에 있어 고려되어야 할 것이다. Purpose: To compare the mean deviation (MD) between monocular and integrated binocular visual field (BVF). Methods: Thirty-six patients with glaucoma in at least 1 eye were recruited for the present study. Seventy-two threshold sensitivities of the BVF were obtained without additional visual field test by the Best Location and Binocular Summation methods using the 2 monocular visual fields of central 30o. The MD of the BVF was obtained by comparison to the value distribution in the age-matched population with normal BVF. After defining the better eye with the better MD value from the 2 eyes, comparison of the MDs between individual eyes and the integrated BVF were assessed. In addition, the MDs between the integrated BVF and actual BVF were compared in 11 patients. Results: In patients with a mean age of 58.7 years, the MD of the better eye was -2.3 dB, and the worse eye was 4.9 dB (p < 0.01). There was a significant difference between the 2 MDs derived from Best Location and Binocular Summation (-1.7 and -2.0 dB, respectively p = 0.045). The MDs according to BVF more improved than the better eye (p < 0.01 for both). There was no significant difference in MDs between integrated BVF and actual BVF (-1.9 vs -2.0, -2.3 vs 2.0, respectively p > 0.1). Conclusions: The integrated BVF more improved than the better eye. When providing guidance to glaucoma patients regarding therapeutic decisions considering the MD of IVF may be important. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013; 54(6):919-926