Download PDF
Journal of Pediatric Neurology 2017; 15(01): 010-014
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593741
Review Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Visual Field Testing in Pediatric Patients

Gena Heidary
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 July 2016

20 July 2016

Publication Date:
12 October 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Diseases that affect vision in pediatric patients may impair central vision (i.e., 20/20 vision) or may affect peripheral or side vision. Although there are established quantitative methods to accurately evaluate central vision throughout childhood, methods of quantifiable peripheral vision or visual field testing are more limited. Some children may be unable to cooperate or understand the methodology of conventional techniques such as automatic static perimetry used in adult patients. Despite this limitation, assessment of visual fields in pediatric patients is clinically relevant in many ophthalmologic and neurologic disease processes that affect children. The purpose of this paper is to review recent literature that examines the feasibility for formal visual field analysis in children and to provide a summary of recent efforts to develop visual field analysis tools for infants, toddlers, and children who are otherwise unable to participate using conventional visual field techniques.

Keywords

visual fields in children - Goldmann kinetic perimetry - automated static perimetry in pediatric patients
 

  • References

  • 1 Glaser JS, Hoyt WF, Corbett J. Visual morbidity with chiasmal glioma. Long-term studies of visual fields in untreated and irradiated cases. Arch Ophthalmol 1971; 85 (1) 3-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kelly JP, Weiss AH. Comparison of pattern visual-evoked potentials to perimetry in the detection of visual loss in children with optic pathway gliomas. J AAPOS 2006; 10 (4) 298-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Freedman SF, Lynn MJ, Beck AD, Bothun ED, Örge FH, Lambert SR ; Infant Aphakia Treatment Study Group. Glaucoma-Related Adverse Events in the First 5 Years after Unilateral Cataract Removal in the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133 (8) 907-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Riikonen R, Rener-Primec Z, Carmant L , et al. Does vigabatrin treatment for infantile spasms cause visual field defects? An international multicentre study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2015; 57 (1) 60-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Koenraads Y, van der Linden DC, van Schooneveld MM , et al. Visual function and compensatory mechanisms for hemianopia after hemispherectomy in children. Epilepsia 2014; 55 (6) 909-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Merabet LB, Devaney KJ, Bauer CM, Panja A, Heidary G, Somers DC. Characterizing Visual Field Deficits in Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment (CVI) Using Combined Diffusion Based Imaging and Functional Retinotopic Mapping: a case study. Front Syst Neurosci 2016; 10: 13 DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 McKillop EC, Dutton GN. Impairment of vision in children due to damage to the brain: a practical approach. Br Ir Orthopt J 2008; 5: 8-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mayer DL, Fulton AB. Visual fields. In: Taylor D, Hoyt CS, eds. Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Vol 2005. 3rd ed. Toronto, Canada: Elsevier; 2005: 78-86
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Trobe JD, Acosta PC, Krischer JP, Trick GL. Confrontation visual field techniques in the detection of anterior visual pathway lesions. Ann Neurol 1981; 10 (1) 28-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pandit RJ, Gales K, Griffiths PG. Effectiveness of testing visual fields by confrontation. Lancet 2001; 358 (9290): 1339-1340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kerr NM, Chew SS, Eady EK, Gamble GD, Danesh-Meyer HV. Diagnostic accuracy of confrontation visual field tests. Neurology 2010; 74 (15) 1184-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bittner AK, Iftikhar MH, Dagnelie G. Test-retest, within-visit variability of Goldmann visual fields in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52 (11) 8042-8046
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Liao F. Perimetry in young children. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1973; 17: 277-289
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Patel DE, Cumberland PM, Walters BC, Russell-Eggitt I, Cortina-Borja M, Rahi JS ; OPTIC Study Group. Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing In Children (OPTIC): normative visual field values in children. Ophthalmology 2015; 122 (8) 1711-1717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Patel DE, Cumberland PM, Walters BC, Russell-Eggitt I, Rahi JS ; OPTIC study group. Study of Optimal Perimetric Testing in Children (OPTIC): feasibility, reliability and repeatability of perimetry in children. PLoS One 2015; 10 (6) e0130895 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130895.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Quinn GE, Fea AM, Minguini N. Visual fields in 4- to 10-year-old children using Goldmann and double-arc perimeters. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1991; 28 (6) 314-319
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zahid S, Peeler C, Khan N , et al. Digital quantification of Goldmann visual fields (GVFs) as a means for genotype-phenotype comparisons and detection of progression in retinal degenerations. Adv Exp Med Biol 2014; 801: 131-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Akar Y, Yilmaz A, Yucel I. Assessment of an effective visual field testing strategy for a normal pediatric population. Ophthalmologica 2008; 222 (5) 329-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Donahue SP, Porter A. SITA visual field testing in children. J AAPOS 2001; 5 (2) 114-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Safran AB, Laffi GL, Bullinger A , et al. Feasibility of automated visual field examination in children between 5 and 8 years of age. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80 (6) 515-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tschopp C, Safran AB, Viviani P, Bullinger A, Reicherts M, Mermoud C. Automated visual field examination in children aged 5–8 years. Part I: Experimental validation of a testing procedure. Vision Res 1998; 38 (14) 2203-2210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cello KE, Nelson-Quigg JM, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry for detection of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129 (3) 314-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Blumenthal EZ, Haddad A, Horani A, Anteby I. The reliability of frequency-doubling perimetry in young children. Ophthalmology 2004; 111 (3) 435-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Becker K, Semes L. The reliability of frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry in a pediatric population. Optometry 2003; 74 (3) 173-179
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Quinn LM, Gardiner SK, Wheeler DT, Newkirk M, Johnson CA. Frequency doubling technology perimetry in normal children. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 142 (6) 983-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mayer DL, Fulton AB, Cummings MF. Visual fields of infants assessed with a new perimetric technique. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988; 29 (3) 452-459
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cummings MF, van Hof-van Duin J, Mayer DL, Hansen RM, Fulton AB. Visual fields of young children. Behav Brain Res 1988; 29 (1–2): 7-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Porro GL, Hofmann J, Wittebol-Post D, Treffers WF. A new behavioral visual field test for clinical use in pediatric neuro-ophthalmology. Neuroophthalmology 1998; 19 (4) 205-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hargadon DD, Wood J, Twelker JD, Harvey EM, Dobson V. Recognition acuity, grating acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual fields in 6-year-old children. Arch Ophthalmol 2010; 128 (1) 70-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Koenraads Y, Braun KP, van der Linden DC, Imhof SM, Porro GL. Perimetry in young and neurologically impaired children: the Behavioral Visual Field (BEFIE) screening test revisited. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133 (3) 319-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Murray IC, Fleck BW, Brash HM, Macrae ME, Tan LL, Minns RA. Feasibility of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry: a method of automated static perimetry for children using eye tracking. Ophthalmology 2009; 116 (10) 2017-2026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Murray I, Perperidis A, Brash H , et al. Saccadic Vector Optokinetic Perimetry (SVOP): a novel technique for automated static perimetry in children using eye tracking. Conference Proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference. 2013;2013:3186–3189
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fleck B, Murray I, Perepidos A, McTrusty A, Cameron L, Minns R. The role of saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry (SVOP) in the diagnosis of ocular and neurological visual loss in infants and young children—a case series. J AAPOS 2014; 18 (4) e29 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2014.07.093.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tailor V, Glaze S, Unwin H, Bowman R, Thompson G, Dahlmann-Noor A. Saccadic vector optokinetic perimetry in children with neurodisability or isolated visual pathway lesions: observational cohort study. Br J Ophthalmol 2016; 100: 1427-1432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Aslam TM, Rahman W, Henson D, Khaw PT. A novel paediatric game-based visual-fields assessor. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95 (7) 921-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Allen LE, Slater ME, Proffitt RV, Quarton E, Pelah A. A new perimeter using the preferential looking response to assess peripheral visual fields in young and developmentally delayed children. J AAPOS 2012; 16 (3) 261-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar