Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the results of tendency-oriented perimetry (TOP) and a dynamic strategy in octopus perimetry as screening methods in clinical practice.
Design: A prospective single centre observational case series was performed.
Participants and methods: In a newly opened general ophthalmologic practice 89 consecutive patients (171 eyes) with a clinical indication for octopus static perimetry testing (ocular hypertension or suspicious optic nerve cupping) were examined prospectively with TOP and a dynamic strategy. The visual fields were graded by 3 masked observers as normal, borderline or abnormal without any further clinical information.
Results: 83% eyes showed the same result for both strategies. In 14% there was a small difference (with one visual field being abnormal or normal, the other being borderline). In only 2.9% of the eyes (5 cases) was there a contradictory result. In 4 out of 5 cases the dynamic visual field was abnormal and TOP was normal. 4 of these cases came back for a second examination. In all 4 the follow-up examination showed a normal second dynamic visual field.
Conclusions: Octopus static perimetry using a TOP strategy is a fast, patient-friendly and very reliable screening tool for the general ophthalmological practice. We found no false-negative results in our series.