Perimetria computadorizada em pacientes glaucomatosos afácicos

Perimetria computadorizada em pacientes glaucomatosos afácicos


Rui Barroso Schimiti,
Vital Paulino Costa,
Newton Kara-José


Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia

versão impressa ISSN 0004-2749versão On-line ISSN 1678-2925

Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. vol.61 no.2 São Paulo abr. 1998



To compare the results of automated perimetry with both full-aperture loose trial lenses and contact lenses in aphakic glaucomatous patients.


17 patients who had been submitted to similar exams in at least two previous occasions have been chosen for the present study. The sequence of exams (full-aperture loose triai tens before contact tens or vice-versa) was randomized. Specific criteria were applied in the choice of contact tenses and the Humphrey Field Anatyser 630. was the testing device setected. Age, sex, race, sphericat equivalent, foveal threshold, MD, CPSD, SF, visual acuity and the amount of time needed for the examinations were analyzed. Student’s t test has been used in the statistical analysis, considering vatues of p tess than 0.05 as significant.


Results of four patients were excluded because of low patient reüabitíty. The average time needed for the examinations with full-aperture lenses (1014.8 ± 51.5 sec) was significatively greater than that with contact lenses (986.9 ± 47.1 sec). The mean MD vatue in the exams with full-aperture tenses (-15.26 ± 1.91) was significativety smaller than such vatue in the contact tens group (-14.03 ± 2.05). The mean CPSD vatue for the full-aperture tens group (6.42 ± 0.42) was significativety greater than its corresponding vatue in the contact tens group (4.46 ± 0.69).


These findings suggest that automated perimetry with soft contact tenses is faster and more accurate than that performed with a full-aperture tens in aphakic gtaucomatous patients.


1 Higginnbothan EJ, Lee DA. Management of Difficult Glaucoma. Cambridge. Blackwell Scientific Publications lnc, 1994.
2 Costa VP. Perimetria Computadorizada: Um guia básico de interpretação. Rio Med, 1995.
3 Katz J et al. Automated Perimetry Detects Visual Field Loss before Manual Goldmann Perimetry. Ophthalmology 1995;102:21-6.
4 Almeida HG. Glaucoma Associado à Afacia. ln: Almeida HG et al. Glaucomas Secundários. São Paulo, Roca, p 213-33,1989.
5 Tomey KF, Traverso CE. Glaucoma associated with Aphakia and Pseudophakia. ln: Ritch et al. The Glaucomas. St. Louis, C.V. Mosby Co., p 1289-323.1996.
6 Miller BA, Gelber EC. Aphakic Visual Fields by Automated Perimetry. Ann Ophthalmol 1990;22:419-22.
7 Zalta AH. Lens Rim Artifact in Automated Threshold Perimetry. Ophthalmology 1989;96: 1302-10.
8 Weinreb RN, Perlman JP. The effect of Refractive Correction on Automated Perimetric Thresholds. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;101:706-9.
9 Anderson DR. Automated Static Perimetry. St Louis Mosby 1992.
10 Wilensky JT, Joondeph BC. Variation in Visual Field Measurements with an Automated Perimeter. Am J Ophthalmol 1984;97:328-31.
11 Zulauf M, Caprioli J. Fluctuation of the Visual Field in Glaucoma. Ophthalmology Clinics of North America 1991;4:671-97.