Aims: To compare the Humphrey Matrix Perimeter (HMP) with the Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) in visual-field examinations of patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma.
Methods: One hundred and forty-nine patients with suspected glaucoma or glaucoma were recruited. All patients underwent visual-field examinations with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm standard, the central 30-2 threshold test with the HFA, and the frequency doubling technique 30-2 threshold test with the HMP. The examination times, mean deviations (MDs) and pattern standard deviations (PSDs) of both perimeters were compared in all patients and according to the patient's diagnosis or the severity of their visual-field defects (VFDs). The paired 2-tailed t test and Pearson's correlation coefficients were used for statistical analyses.
Results: Overall, the examination times were significantly shorter with the HMP than with the HFA. There was a positive correlation between the HFA and HMP measurements of MD and PSD. In patients with suspected glaucoma, the PSDs measured with the HMP were significantly higher than those measured with the HFA. In patients with mild VFDs (MD >-4.0 dB), PSDs measured with the HMP were significantly higher than those measured with the HFA. In patients with severe VFDs (MD <-12.0 dB), MDs measured with the HMP were significantly higher than those measured with the HFA, whereas PSDs measured with the HMP were significantly lower than those measured with the HFA.
Conclusions: The HMP is more time efficient than the HFA in visual-field examinations. The HMP tends to overestimate mild VFDs and underestimate severe VFDs.