Evaluation of the Results of 24-2C Visual Field Test in Glaucoma Patients

Torun I. M., Baysal T., Cömerter D., Düzgün E., SÖNMEZ M.

Turkish Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, cilt.20, sa.1, ss.10-15, 2025 (Scopus)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 20 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.37844/tj-ceo.2025.20.2
  • Dergi Adı: Turkish Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.10-15
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: central visual field defect, glaucoma, glaucoma hemifield test, pattern deviation map, visual field
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to compare the results of the 24-2C test strategy of the Humphrey Automated Perimetry device with the 24-2 test strategy in terms of its ability to detect central visual field defect (CVFD), test duration, and visual field global indices in glaucoma patients. Materials and Methods: Visual field tests of a randomly selected eye of 105 glaucoma patients were included in this prospective study. Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Faster 24-2 and SITA-Faster 24-2C tests were performed on all patients. Test duration, global visual field indices and pattern deviation map results were analyzed. Results: The SITA-Faster 24-2C test is statistically longer than the SITA-Faster 24-2 test (p=0.014). There was no significant difference in Mean Deviation (MD), Pattern Standard Deviation (PSD), or Visual Field Index (VFI) between the two visual field strategies. There was a statistically significant difference in terms of Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) between the 24-2 grid and 24-2C grid visual field tests (p = 0.0001). Comparing the number of scotomas detected by both test strategies in the 10° central visual field, the 24-2C algorithm detected a significantly higher rate of central scotomas (p=0.017). Conclusion: Although the 24-2C test was slightly more time-consuming than the 24-2 test, it provided comparable results in terms of global visual field indices and was superior at detecting CVFD.