Manual vs. automated perimetry

PURPOSE: The study was performed with the aim to compare the relative advantage and disadvantage of manual perimetry (as on Bjerrum’s Screen) and computerized perimetry (as on Medmont Perimeter) and it was performed as per following guidelines-1) To study the importance of repeated documentation of visual fields, as done in the form of printout’s of Automated perimeter in the diagnosis and prognosis of different groups of patients.2) To prove the efficiency of Automated perimeters in determining precisely various Absolute and relative field defects.3) To prove the efficiency of Automated perimetry as a follow up measure, to decide the effectiveness of medical and surgical management provided to the patients.4) To establish the fulfilment of various reliability criteria much better on automated Perimeter. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The study has been performed on 50 patients, 35 patients for glaucoma test, 10 patients for neurological test and 5 patients for macular test. The interaction with each patient started in OPD, which is again taken in to 2 groups of patients-1) patients as a known case of particular disorder (e.g. Glaucoma, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Macular hole etc.)Or 2) those patients who have presented for the first time and freshly diagnosed cases. RESULTS: Evidences showing superiority of Automated perimetry over Manual perimetry. Evidence also showing variability of fields in different groups. CONCLUSION: the automated perimeter was proved to be better than Manual perimetry in following respects;1) better fulfilment of reliability criteria 2) better compliance 3) better standardization 4) higher specificity 5) much higher sensitivity 6) better reproducibility 7) better means for comparisons and follow up 8) provision of documentation