Acceptance of Novel Perimetry Methods in Germany: Virtual Reality Perimetry and Tablet-based Perimetry in Glaucoma Patients

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptance of innovative perimetry methods such as virtual reality perimetry (VRP) and tablet-based perimetry (TBP) in comparison to conventional hemisphere perimetry (HP) in glaucoma patients for the first time in Germany.

Patients and Methods We examined 204 glaucoma patients using the 30 – 2 TOP algorithm (Octopus, Haag-Streit) followed by one of the two new methods: Group 1 (VRP; n = 101) and Group 2 (TBP using the Melbourne Rapid Fields Glaucoma App; n = 103). Subsequently, patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire on their experience with the new examination compared to the conventional examination.

Results More than three-quarters of patients at 77% in Group 1 (VR) and 89.9% of patients in Group 2 (TBP) found the respective new examination method “easier” or “much easier” than the conventional HP. An overwhelming majority of patients in Group 1 and Group 2 found the new method more comfortable at 86% and 90.9%, respectively. Examination durations were: 2.67 ± 0.98 min for HP, 6.26 ± 1.88 min for VR perimetry, and 4 ± 0.71 min for the tablet method; figures given as means ± standard deviation. Just over half the patients at 51% found HP and VR headset to be similar for duration with 54% preferring the tablet over conventional hemisphere perimetry. By far the most patients in Groups 1 and 2 at 80% and 81.8%, respectively, reported willingness to use the new perimetry method regularly in future follow-up examinations.

Conclusion Most glaucoma patients surveyed consistently responded favourably to VR headset and tablet-based perimetry, preferring these examinations to conventional hemispherical perimetry.

Keywords

visual field - glaucoma - virtual reality perimetry - Melbourne Rapid Field - tablet perimetry

Publication History

Received: 04 September 2024

Accepted: 24 December 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 January 2025

Article published online:
24 March 2025

• References/Literatur

• 1 Gardiner SK, Demirel S. Assessment of patient opinions of different clinical tests used in the management of glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 2127-2131
• 2 Chew SS, Kerr NM, Wong AB. et al. Anxiety in visual field testing. Br J Ophthalmol 2016; 100: 1128-1133
• 3 Kaliaperumal S, Janani VS, Menon V. et al. Study of anxiety in patients with glaucoma undergoing standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography – A prospective comparative study. Indian J Ophthalmol 2022; 70: 2883-2887
• 4 Camp AS, Weinreb RN. Will Perimetry Be Performed to Monitor Glaucoma in 2025?. Ophthalmology 2017; 124(12S): S71-S75
• 5 King AJ, Taguri A, Wadood AC. et al. Comparison of two fast strategies, SITA Fast and TOP, for the assessment of visual fields in glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2002; 240: 481-487
• 6 Wadood AC, Azuara-Blanco A, Aspinall P. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of frequency-doubling technology, tendency-oriented perimetry, and Humphrey Swedish interactive threshold algorithm-fast perimetry in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133: 327-332
• 7 Daka Q, Mustafa R, Neziri B. et al. Home-Based Perimetry for Glaucoma: Where Are We Now?. J Glaucoma 2022; 31: 361-374
• 8 Chia MA, Trang E, Agar A. et al. Screening for Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects in Rural Australia with an iPad. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2021; 15: 125-131
• 9 Groth SL, Linton EF, Brown EN. et al. Evaluation of Virtual Reality Perimetry and Standard Automated Perimetry in Normal Children. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2023; 12: 6
• 10 Stapelfeldt J, Kucur SS, Huber N. et al. Virtual Reality-Based and Conventional Visual Field Examination Comparison in Healthy and Glaucoma Patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2021; 10: 10
• 11 Chia ZK, Kong AW, Turner ML. et al. Assessment of Remote Training, At-Home Testing, and Test-Retest Variability of a Novel Test for Clustered Virtual Reality Perimetry. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2024; 7: 139-147
• 12 Prea SM, Kong YXG, Mehta A. et al. Six-month Longitudinal Comparison of a Portable Tablet Perimeter With the Humphrey Field Analyzer. Am J Ophthalmol 2018; 190: 9-16
• 13 Prea SM, Vingrys AJ, Kong GYX. Test Reliability and Compliance to a Twelve-Month Visual Field Telemedicine Study in Glaucoma Patients. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 4317
• 14 Shetty V, Sankhe P, Haldipurkar SS. et al. Diagnostic Performance of the PalmScan VF2000 Virtual Reality Visual Field Analyzer for Identification and Classification of Glaucoma. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2022; 17: 33-41
• 15 Harris PA, Johnson CA, Chen Y. et al. Evaluation of the Melbourne Rapid Fields Test Procedure. Optom Vis Sci 2022; 99: 372-382
• 16 Kong YX, He M, Crowston JG. et al. A Comparison of Perimetric Results from a Tablet Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2016; 5: 2
• 17 Kumar H, Thulasidas M. Comparison of Perimetric Outcomes from Melbourne Rapid Fields Tablet Perimeter Software and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients. J Ophthalmol 2020; 2020: 8384509
• 18 Prince J, Thompson A, Mwanza JC. et al. Glaucoma Screening Using an iPad-Based Visual Field Test in a West African Population. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2022; 5: 275-283
• 19 Freeman SE, De Arrigunaga S, Kang J. et al. Participant Experience Using Novel Perimetry Tests to Monitor Glaucoma Progression. J Glaucoma 2023; 32: 948-953