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

Introduction

Visual field examinations quantify functional glaucoma damage and therefore play a vital role in glaucoma diagnostics and management. The classical visual field examination involves static automated hemisphere perimetry using a hemispherical bowl in a darkened room. Many patients find this subjective examination challenging, as it requires time, concentration, and a learning curve. One study examining glaucoma patient preferences for follow-up examination showed the visual field examination to the least popular of all the examinations, including intraocular pressure measurement and instrumental diagnostics [1]. Other studies have also shown visual field examination to cause more anxiety in patients compared to other glaucoma examinations, which also diminishes reliability in the results [2], [3].

The necessity of hemisphere perimetry has been questioned, especially during the pandemic. Novel innovative perimetry methods such as a virtual reality perimeter headset (VR headset) or head-mounted display (HMD) and tablet-based perimetry offer many benefits over the conventional method and may play an important role in glaucoma management in the future [4].

The aim of this study was to determine the acceptance of new portable systems amongst glaucoma patients.

Methods

Sampling

The study sample consisted of 204 glaucoma patients aged between 19 and 93 (mean age: 67.5 ± 12.6). Each patient was examined using conventional hemisphere perimetry (HP) first, followed by either one of the two new perimetry methods (virtual reality headset or tablet-based perimetry) at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Cologne, Germany. Two different examiners consecutively and independently performed data collection and patient examination in the two groups. The devices used were: 1. Octopus 900 (Haag-Streit Germany) for hemisphere perimetry, 2. PalmScan VF 2000 (MicroMedicalDevice, USA) for virtual reality perimetry (VRP) using a VR headset in Groups 1 and 3; and Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) Glaucoma app (version 5.0, Glance Optical Pty.Ltd., Melbourne, Australia) in Group 2, running on an iPad Pro (Apple Inc., USA) for tablet-based perimetry (TBP). The PalmScan VF200 system and MRF app were both CE-certified Europe and FDA-approved in the USA.

We used a modified Hodapp glaucoma classification system based on the reference values of hemisphere perimetry on each group, results as follows: Mean deviation more than − 6 dB: mild, − 6 to − 12 dB: moderate, and less than − 12 dB: severe.

The Cologne University Ethics Committee approved the study (reference: 21 – 1502_2); all patients signed their informed consent.

Examination procedure

We briefed the patients on the examination procedure and obtained their written consent at the beginning of each examination. All patients were familiar with hemisphere perimetry (HP) and had already taken an HP examination more than once in the past. We then explained the specifics of each examination using the two novel methods to the patients. Each patient was examined using classical hemisphere perimetry ([Fig. 1]). We used the standard system at our hospital, TOP 30 – 2 (Tendency-oriented Perimetry) for the purpose. Trend-oriented perimetry optimises rapid threshold testing, reducing examination times by almost 80% to only 2 – 4 minutes compared to 6 – 8 minutes using a dynamic strategy or 10 – 12 min with the normal strategy [5], [6]. The TOP algorithm methodically correlates thresholds at neighbouring locations. The first test points are presented at levels above the threshold, easily guiding inexperienced patients into the test method.

Fig. 1 Examination situation using a classic hemispherical perimeter (Octopus, Haag-Streit): The patient sits slightly leaning forward in front of the hemisphere perimeter. The examiner adjusts the seat height to align the patientʼs head. The patient holds a wired clicker in the right hand. The right eye is covered for the left eye to be examined.

After that, we used one of the two new perimetry methods using either a VR headset or a tablet to examine the patients. Finally, each patient completed a questionnaire after taking the two visual field examinations ([Fig. 2] and [3]).

Fig. 2 Patient questionnaire on the examination using a virtual reality headset compared to classical hemisphere perimetry.

Fig. 3 Patient questionnaire on the tablet-based examination compared to classical hemisphere perimetry.

Virtual reality perimetry

The VR headset consists of three components: A head-mounted display (MHD), a clicker, and a tablet. The examination procedure is similar to classical hemisphere perimetry. The patient puts on the headset, which is secured using head straps. Well-adjusted headbands compensate for the weight of the VR headset, which also contains a smartphone; the examination uses this smartphoneʼs screen. The VR headset is padded. The surface contacting the patientʼs face can be cleaned using disinfectant, or a pre-cut disposable hygiene cover can be used instead. The patient holds the clicker in one hand and pushes the button or switch after seeing a light stimulus that appears during the examination. The patient can be kept in a comfortable position during the examination ([Fig. 4]). The clicker connects to the tablet using Bluetooth. The examiner guides the examination on the tablet. We used the manufacturerʼs recommended standard system, Central 24-2 Threshold, with our glaucoma patients. According to the manufacturer, this examination strategy is one of the most commonly used and is recommended for examinations on glaucoma patients. Also note that this test strategy uses several test points for localising the blind spot and as fixation control in contrast to the TOP strategy used in hemisphere perimetry, explaining the high number of test points applied and longer test duration. The tablet requires a Wi-Fi connection. The examination ends with the result shown on the tablet; this result can also be exported to PDF format and printed out if required.

Fig. 4 a Visual field testing using a VR headset. The patient sits in a comfortable position, puts on the VR headset, and holds the wireless clicker in one hand. b Sample printout of an examination result using a VR headset.

Tablet-based perimetry

Tablet-based perimetry (TBP) requires a tablet and an installed app. The MRF glaucoma app was designed for iOS and runs on iOS version 8 or newer. The lightness level on the display is automatic. The patient holds the tablet at around a foot away. The room needs to be darkened without any reflections from external light sources reaching the surface of the tablet, and the eye not being examined needs to be covered. The patient keeps focused on a red cross (fixation cross) appearing in the middle of the display at the beginning of the examination. This serves to localise the blind spot and test the central visual field. The fixation cross then moves to the four corners of the tablet, one after the other. Fixation is controlled by following the location of the blind spot. The patient taps anywhere on the tablet surface or in touch circle at the lower right area of the screen with the thumb or index finger on seeing a light stimulus ([Fig. 5]), so the patient registers a response to light stimuli directly on the tablet screen. The app has an optional multilingual acoustic assistance feature that sounds at regular intervals to keep the patient focused; this feature can also be switched off. Our examinations took place under normal lighting conditions during daytime hours in examination rooms at our hospital.

Fig. 5 a Visual field testing using a tablet. The patient holds the tablet in the hand supported on a table. The eye being examined remains open with an eye patch covering the other eye. The patient sees the fixation cross in the middle of the tablet screen (thick arrow). The touch zone is in the bottom right corner. The light stimulus (thin arrow) appears to the left of the fixation cross and is presented to the patient. The patient taps the surface of the tablet to register seeing the light stimulus. b Sample printout of an examination result using the Melbourne Rapid Fields tablet app.

We used Central 24 – 2 Full Grid Threshold Test system, a modified version of the 24 – 2 system that tests 24° × 21° of the visual field, in the present contribution. a modified 24 – 2 software package that tests 24° × 21° of the visual field. The test uses fifty-six fixed points and takes around four minutes for each eye. The manufacturer recommends this test strategy for examinations on glaucoma patients.

Results

We examined 204 patients in total. Group 1 (VRP) encompassed n = 101 patients and 202 eyes, compared to 103 patients and 206 eyes in Group 2.

The average age of patients in Group 1 (n = 101) was 69.1 ± 11.9 and 66.0 ± 13.2 in Group 2 (n = 103) (age given as the mean ± standard deviation).

Gender distribution was 52% (male) in Group 1 and 40.4% (male) in Group 2.

Glaucoma stages in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively, according to the modified Hodapp classification were as follows: 37.9% and 44.5%: mild; 27.6% and 26%: moderate; and 34.5% and 29.5% severe.

[Tables 1] and [2] summarise the results of the questionnaire from the patients in the two groups.

Table 1 Results from asking patients for their general impression of the new perimetry methods; Group 1 (VRP: VR perimetry with a headset) and group 2 (tablet). This table summarises the results of the two subgroups using the VR headset (VRP) and the tablet; this necessarily includes blank cells in the table.

Questions	Group 1 (VRP)			Group 2 (tablet)
	Yes	No	Donʼt know	Yes	No	Donʼt know
Are you familiar with using virtual reality headsets or tablets?	6%	94%	0%	58.4%	41.6%	0%
Did you experience any difficulties using the clicker with the VR headset?	3%	96%	1%
Did you feel you were more distracted using the tablet compared to hemisphere perimetry during the examination?				26.3%	68.7%	5.1%
Did you experience any difficulties tapping the tablet interface when you saw a light stimulus?				11.1%	85.9%	3%
Did you feel that you could see the light marks less clearly using the VR headset or on the tablet compared to hemispherical perimetry?	19%	77%	4%	0%	99%	1%
Did you experience more difficulties keeping focused on the fixation point on the tablet compared to hemisphere perimetry?				9.1%	90.9%	0%
Did you find the examination more tiring using the VR headset or tablet compared to hemisphere perimetry?	8%	91%	1%	5.1%	84.8%	10.1%

Table 2 Results from the patient survey on direct comparison between the two devices they used – conventional method vs. new method.

	Group 1 (VRP)			Group 2 (tablet)
	VRP	HP	Both the same	Tablet	HP	Both the same
VRP: Virtual reality headset perimetry; HP: hemisphere perimetry
Which examination method could you see yourself using regularly to monitor your condition?	80%	7%	13%	81.8%	3%	15.2%
Which examination method did you prefer for duration?	35%	14%	51%	54%	11.1%	34.8%
Which procedure did you prefer for keeping focused?	54%	6%	40%	62.1%	10.1%	27.8%
Which procedure did you prefer for comfort (head and body posture)?	86%	7%	7%	90.9%	6.1%	3%

In Group 1, 58% of patients found the VR headset easier to use compared to the conventional method, 19% much easier, and 19% the same; 4% found it more difficult.

In Group 2, 53.5% of patients found the tablet easier to use compared to the conventional method, 35.4% much easier, and 8.1% the same; 2% found it more difficult.

In Group 1, 51% of the patients expressed no preference for either method regarding duration compared to 40% regarding need to keep focused, followed by a preference for the VR headset at 35% for duration and 54% for the need to keep focused. In contrast, 54% of patients in Group 2 preferred the tablet regarding duration and 62.1% regarding focus whereas 34.8% expressed no preference for duration and 27.8% for focus, rating both methods the same. The only statistically significant difference between the two groups (VRP and TBP) applied to duration and need to keep focused at p < 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively (chi-square test). There were no significant differences in choice and comfort regarding the new methods.

The visual field examination using the VR headset took 6.26 ± 1.88 min (mean ± standard deviation; min. 2.11, max. 15.15 min) compared to 4 ± 0.71 min (mean ± standard deviation; min. 2, max. 6.03 min) using the tablet. In contrast, the hemisphere perimetry examination took 2.67 ± 0.98 min (mean ± standard deviation; min. 1.66, max. 9.88 min).

Discussion

The results of the present contribution revealed that most “experienced” glaucoma patients found the perimetry examination to be less strenuous using either of the novel perimetry methods (VRP and TBP) compared to hemisphere perimetry (HP). The portability of the two devices provides an explanation for the high level of satisfaction regarding comfort and ergonomics in the examination. Hemisphere perimetry requires the patientʼs head position to be secured, whereas the two new perimetry devices are flexible in this regard. This allows for a high degree of versatility in examination conditions – a visual field examination using one of the new methods may be performed at the patientʼs bedside, on children, or on patients with physical disabilities with difficulties positioning themselves in front of a hemisphere perimeter, such as patients confined to a wheelchair.

Portable systems are also less expensive than conventional hemisphere perimeter systems; apart from that, they are suitable for home use in self-monitoring or in areas with limited ophthalmological care, such as in rural areas [7], [8]. In addition, the novel methods are also suitable for visual field examinations on children. Groth et al. examined fifty healthy children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 using a VR headset – albeit a different model from the one used in the present contribution – and showed a high level of patient satisfaction qualifying the method as a novel option for visual field examinations in this age group [9]. Tablets are also now widely used in the classroom, so children are becoming increasingly familiar with this kind of device.

Regarding examination duration and need to keep focused, patients did not show a clear preference for any method with mixed preferences for the new perimetry examination method compared to the conventional method. Even so, the VRP and the TBP duration averaged around two to three times that of hemisphere perimetry. For VRP, this was due to the increased number of test points used by the system compared to HP. We used the standard system recommended by the manufacturer for glaucoma patients. One possible explanation for the longer study duration could be the large number of patients with severe glaucoma – the more defects there were, the longer the examination took. Other authors also came to a similar conclusion on duration [10], [11].

Another benefit from the portable systems would be the potential increase in patient compliance and adherence due to the obvious opportunity for telemedical application. The tablet-based method would seem especially promising in this regard due to the widespread use of these devices in the population. More than half the patients we examined (58.4%) reported that they were already familiar with using a tablet. Prea et al. demonstrated very high patient compliance with weekly self-testing at home both over a short and a long period – six weeks and twelve months – in a medium-sized to large cohort of glaucoma patients in two telemedicine studies [12], [13]. This clearly indicates the high level of suitability for TBP in telemedical care with patients bringing their visual field test results taken at home for follow-up assessment at the ophthalmologistʼs appointment.

The diagnostic accuracy of these portable systems has been tested on small patient cohorts for validation in the literature. Shetty et al. demonstrated very good glaucoma detection using VRP (PalmScan 2000; the same device as the one we used) in a study on 166 eyes [14]. Harris et al. demonstrated good comparability between the MRF app and hemisphere perimetry in forty healthy patients [15]. Kong et al. also showed a strong correlation in their results from TBP using the MRF app compared to hemisphere perimetry as well as a comparable test-retest reliability [16]. Further validation studies are still required to establish equivalence in the new methods compared to HP. However, there are currently several VR headset and tablet-based perimetry app manufacturers on the market, so the technology is highly heterogeneous.

Another important factor is patient selection for examination using the new methods, especially TBP. At total of 68.7% of patients in Group 2 (tablet) reported that they were no longer distracted during the examination using the tablet compared to hemisphere perimetry. This means that more than one in four patients at 26.3% reported feeling more distracted using TBP. This needs to be considered in selecting patients. Apart from that, 99% of the patients in Group 2 reported not experiencing any problems in seeing the light stimuli on the tablet. This is a surprisingly unambiguous response running contrary to potential expectations that the reflective tablet surface might pose a potential visibility problem. Some studies on TBP have even proposed specific strategies for optimal tablet positioning away from windows, or partition wall installations to shield the tablet display from reflections [17]. We took no such measures in the present contribution, and yet none of our patients reported any issues seeing the stimuli, which was most likely because they intuitively took a proper posture while holding the tablet.

Another important point is that comparability is lower in TBP compared to hemisphere perimetry in severe glaucoma. Prince et al. showed significant deviations in diagnostic accuracy using TBP in moderate to severe glaucoma in a West African cohort of 103 patients, but potential for screening in a resource-poor setting [18].

A similar study by Freeman et al. examined eighty-one patients with TBP using the MRF app with the aim of determining acceptance, using a questionnaire for the purpose. Just over nine in ten patients at 90.1% reported very good experiences with the tablet, with 75% responding that they would be willing to use this perimetry method with a tablet on a weekly basis [19].

The aim of our study was to evaluate how our patients experienced the examination using the new methods towards determining their potential acceptance amongst glaucoma patients in Germany. We found a clearly favourable positive response on acceptance for the new methods. This is a promising trend, representing a potential door opener for portable perimetry methods and telemedicine, especially regarding patient adherence.

Conclusion

Portable perimetry devices are a promising development with the potential for a paradigm shift in glaucoma care in Germany. This is the first study in Germany to gauge subjective perceptions of visual field examinations using either VR headsets or tablet-based apps amongst glaucoma patients. These survey results unambiguously demonstrate that glaucoma patients are generally open to using these new and innovative visual field examination options. High levels of patient acceptance could lead to good patient adherence. These innovative perimetry methods are also suitable for visual field examinations at home and in telemedical care scenarios. Our results warrant further studies on validating the two devices against conventional hemisphere perimetry towards implementing these new methods in Germany in the long term.

Conflict of Interest

S. Schrittenlocher, V. Lüke, H. Irle, J. Weliwitage, J. N. Lüke, A. Lappas, T. Dietlein and C. Cursiefen declare that they have no conflict of interest. G. Kong and A. J. Vingrys are Founding Director and CSO at Glance Optical Pty., Ltd. and they hold shares in Melbourne Rapid Fields Applikation.

• 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

Publication History

Received: 04 September 2024

Accepted: 24 December 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 January 2025

Article published online:
24 March 2025