Normal values for fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter and short‐term repeatability evaluation
Purpose To assess retinal sensitivity by means of microperimetry and to evaluate the intersession fluctuation using the MAIA microperimeter in healthy volunteers. Methods Prospective, monocentre study. Fifty‐six healthy volunteers (age range, 20–80 years), underwent an automatic, full‐threshold micr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) England), 2016-10, Vol.94 (S256), p.n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | S256 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) |
| container_volume | 94 |
| creator | Baudin, F. Assad, G. Meillon, C. Koehrer, P. Bron, A. Creuzot, C. |
| description | Purpose
To assess retinal sensitivity by means of microperimetry and to evaluate the intersession fluctuation using the MAIA microperimeter in healthy volunteers.
Methods
Prospective, monocentre study. Fifty‐six healthy volunteers (age range, 20–80 years), underwent an automatic, full‐threshold microperimetry of the central field (custom grid, area of 10° in diameter, 37 stimulated points), with the MAIA microperimeter (CenterVue, Padova, Italy). A subgroup of 24 subjects was retested after 1 h (test 2) and 1 week (test 3) to determine the repeatability of the technique. A subgroup of 22 subjects was also tested on the OPKO microperimeter (Optos, Dunfermline, Scotland) (area of 10° in diameter, 28 stimulated points).
Results
Median age was 30 years [25.3–47.8]. The overall mean sensitivity for test 1 was 29.4 ± 1.4 dB, 29.8 ± 1.0 dB for test 2 and 29.9 ± 1.1 dB for test 3, respectively. Linear regression analysis showed a significant 0.5 dB sensitivity loss for each decade of life (r² = 0.27). In a subset of 24 subjects, the repeatability of the test performed at 3 separate visits showed a statistically significant difference between test 1 and 3 (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2016.0397 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1918805139</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1918805139</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2007-5baa9e672b948f30d89d816c1d240acab80a64738cc7ae09fc06409333e06d973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1KxDAUhYsoOI4-ghBw3XrTtGnirgz-DIzOQgV3IW1TJqV_pq1Ddz6Cz-iTmDrDLMVskntzzr2cz3EuMXjYnuvCw1EYuiSizPMBUw8Ij46c2aF7fHiHb6fOWdcVABRTGswc_dSYSpboQ5aD6lDeGJQPdTZ0qFVGV6o3I9rqfoP6jUKP8TJGlU5Ns_9UBsk6Q92mMf3355etK2RUq2QvE13qfkRqGix73dTnzkkuy05d7O-583p3-7J4cFfr--UiXrmpDxC5YSIlVzTyEx6wnEDGeMYwTXHmByBTmTCQNIgIS9NIKuB5CjQATghRQDMekblztZvbmubdZupF0QymtisF5pgxCDHhf6oY5sAoQGhV4U5lI3edUblobW5pRoFBTOxFISayYqIsJvZiYm99NzvfVpdq_J9JxOvnX_MPd8-KCw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1819086005</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Normal values for fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter and short‐term repeatability evaluation</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>Baudin, F. ; Assad, G. ; Meillon, C. ; Koehrer, P. ; Bron, A. ; Creuzot, C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Baudin, F. ; Assad, G. ; Meillon, C. ; Koehrer, P. ; Bron, A. ; Creuzot, C.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To assess retinal sensitivity by means of microperimetry and to evaluate the intersession fluctuation using the MAIA microperimeter in healthy volunteers.
Methods
Prospective, monocentre study. Fifty‐six healthy volunteers (age range, 20–80 years), underwent an automatic, full‐threshold microperimetry of the central field (custom grid, area of 10° in diameter, 37 stimulated points), with the MAIA microperimeter (CenterVue, Padova, Italy). A subgroup of 24 subjects was retested after 1 h (test 2) and 1 week (test 3) to determine the repeatability of the technique. A subgroup of 22 subjects was also tested on the OPKO microperimeter (Optos, Dunfermline, Scotland) (area of 10° in diameter, 28 stimulated points).
Results
Median age was 30 years [25.3–47.8]. The overall mean sensitivity for test 1 was 29.4 ± 1.4 dB, 29.8 ± 1.0 dB for test 2 and 29.9 ± 1.1 dB for test 3, respectively. Linear regression analysis showed a significant 0.5 dB sensitivity loss for each decade of life (r² = 0.27). In a subset of 24 subjects, the repeatability of the test performed at 3 separate visits showed a statistically significant difference between test 1 and 3 (p < 0.004). Test 2 and 3 showed consistent values over time (p = 0.160). Furthermore, the MAIA showed higher threshold values than the OPKO for all test locations. Linear regression of the perimetric results showed significant correlation between the 2 machines (r = 0.44; p < 0.001).
Conclusions
This study found an age‐related macular sensitivity loss. These findings are in agreement with previous data obtained with the MP1 and the OPKO microperimeters. The increase in sensitivity between test 1 and test 2 and 3 should be taken into account in clinical practice. Automatic fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter allows for accurate, repeatable examination, if a training session is performed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-375X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-3768</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2016.0397</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Age ; Ophthalmology ; Regression analysis ; Retina ; Sensitivity ; Statistical analysis ; Variation</subject><ispartof>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England), 2016-10, Vol.94 (S256), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1755-3768.2016.0397$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,1432,27922,27923,45573,46831</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baudin, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assad, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meillon, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koehrer, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bron, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Creuzot, C.</creatorcontrib><title>Normal values for fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter and short‐term repeatability evaluation</title><title>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England)</title><description>Purpose
To assess retinal sensitivity by means of microperimetry and to evaluate the intersession fluctuation using the MAIA microperimeter in healthy volunteers.
Methods
Prospective, monocentre study. Fifty‐six healthy volunteers (age range, 20–80 years), underwent an automatic, full‐threshold microperimetry of the central field (custom grid, area of 10° in diameter, 37 stimulated points), with the MAIA microperimeter (CenterVue, Padova, Italy). A subgroup of 24 subjects was retested after 1 h (test 2) and 1 week (test 3) to determine the repeatability of the technique. A subgroup of 22 subjects was also tested on the OPKO microperimeter (Optos, Dunfermline, Scotland) (area of 10° in diameter, 28 stimulated points).
Results
Median age was 30 years [25.3–47.8]. The overall mean sensitivity for test 1 was 29.4 ± 1.4 dB, 29.8 ± 1.0 dB for test 2 and 29.9 ± 1.1 dB for test 3, respectively. Linear regression analysis showed a significant 0.5 dB sensitivity loss for each decade of life (r² = 0.27). In a subset of 24 subjects, the repeatability of the test performed at 3 separate visits showed a statistically significant difference between test 1 and 3 (p < 0.004). Test 2 and 3 showed consistent values over time (p = 0.160). Furthermore, the MAIA showed higher threshold values than the OPKO for all test locations. Linear regression of the perimetric results showed significant correlation between the 2 machines (r = 0.44; p < 0.001).
Conclusions
This study found an age‐related macular sensitivity loss. These findings are in agreement with previous data obtained with the MP1 and the OPKO microperimeters. The increase in sensitivity between test 1 and test 2 and 3 should be taken into account in clinical practice. Automatic fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter allows for accurate, repeatable examination, if a training session is performed.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Retina</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Variation</subject><issn>1755-375X</issn><issn>1755-3768</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkM1KxDAUhYsoOI4-ghBw3XrTtGnirgz-DIzOQgV3IW1TJqV_pq1Ddz6Cz-iTmDrDLMVskntzzr2cz3EuMXjYnuvCw1EYuiSizPMBUw8Ij46c2aF7fHiHb6fOWdcVABRTGswc_dSYSpboQ5aD6lDeGJQPdTZ0qFVGV6o3I9rqfoP6jUKP8TJGlU5Ns_9UBsk6Q92mMf3355etK2RUq2QvE13qfkRqGix73dTnzkkuy05d7O-583p3-7J4cFfr--UiXrmpDxC5YSIlVzTyEx6wnEDGeMYwTXHmByBTmTCQNIgIS9NIKuB5CjQATghRQDMekblztZvbmubdZupF0QymtisF5pgxCDHhf6oY5sAoQGhV4U5lI3edUblobW5pRoFBTOxFISayYqIsJvZiYm99NzvfVpdq_J9JxOvnX_MPd8-KCw</recordid><startdate>201610</startdate><enddate>201610</enddate><creator>Baudin, F.</creator><creator>Assad, G.</creator><creator>Meillon, C.</creator><creator>Koehrer, P.</creator><creator>Bron, A.</creator><creator>Creuzot, C.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201610</creationdate><title>Normal values for fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter and short‐term repeatability evaluation</title><author>Baudin, F. ; Assad, G. ; Meillon, C. ; Koehrer, P. ; Bron, A. ; Creuzot, C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2007-5baa9e672b948f30d89d816c1d240acab80a64738cc7ae09fc06409333e06d973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Retina</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Variation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baudin, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assad, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meillon, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koehrer, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bron, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Creuzot, C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baudin, F.</au><au>Assad, G.</au><au>Meillon, C.</au><au>Koehrer, P.</au><au>Bron, A.</au><au>Creuzot, C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Normal values for fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter and short‐term repeatability evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England)</jtitle><date>2016-10</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>S256</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1755-375X</issn><eissn>1755-3768</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To assess retinal sensitivity by means of microperimetry and to evaluate the intersession fluctuation using the MAIA microperimeter in healthy volunteers.
Methods
Prospective, monocentre study. Fifty‐six healthy volunteers (age range, 20–80 years), underwent an automatic, full‐threshold microperimetry of the central field (custom grid, area of 10° in diameter, 37 stimulated points), with the MAIA microperimeter (CenterVue, Padova, Italy). A subgroup of 24 subjects was retested after 1 h (test 2) and 1 week (test 3) to determine the repeatability of the technique. A subgroup of 22 subjects was also tested on the OPKO microperimeter (Optos, Dunfermline, Scotland) (area of 10° in diameter, 28 stimulated points).
Results
Median age was 30 years [25.3–47.8]. The overall mean sensitivity for test 1 was 29.4 ± 1.4 dB, 29.8 ± 1.0 dB for test 2 and 29.9 ± 1.1 dB for test 3, respectively. Linear regression analysis showed a significant 0.5 dB sensitivity loss for each decade of life (r² = 0.27). In a subset of 24 subjects, the repeatability of the test performed at 3 separate visits showed a statistically significant difference between test 1 and 3 (p < 0.004). Test 2 and 3 showed consistent values over time (p = 0.160). Furthermore, the MAIA showed higher threshold values than the OPKO for all test locations. Linear regression of the perimetric results showed significant correlation between the 2 machines (r = 0.44; p < 0.001).
Conclusions
This study found an age‐related macular sensitivity loss. These findings are in agreement with previous data obtained with the MP1 and the OPKO microperimeters. The increase in sensitivity between test 1 and test 2 and 3 should be taken into account in clinical practice. Automatic fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter allows for accurate, repeatable examination, if a training session is performed.</abstract><cop>Malden</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1755-3768.2016.0397</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1755-375X |
| ispartof | Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England), 2016-10, Vol.94 (S256), p.n/a |
| issn | 1755-375X 1755-3768 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1918805139 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Free Content |
| subjects | Age Ophthalmology Regression analysis Retina Sensitivity Statistical analysis Variation |
| title | Normal values for fundus perimetry with the MAIA microperimeter and short‐term repeatability evaluation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T01%3A59%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Normal%20values%20for%20fundus%20perimetry%20with%20the%20MAIA%20microperimeter%20and%20short%E2%80%90term%20repeatability%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=Acta%20ophthalmologica%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Baudin,%20F.&rft.date=2016-10&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=S256&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1755-375X&rft.eissn=1755-3768&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2016.0397&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1918805139%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1819086005&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |