Comparison of Visual Field Assessments Between the Humphrey Field Analyzer, Tempo, and Virtual Eye Elite Perimeters

Clayton Blehm,1 Brad Hall2 1North Georgia Eye Associates, Gainesville, GA, USA; 2Sengi, Penniac, NB, CanadaCorrespondence: Clayton Blehm, North Georgia Eye Associates, Gainesville, GA, 30501, USA, Tel +1-770-532-4444, Email [email protected]: To compare test duration and the agreement of summary metrics between the TEMPO, Virtual Eye ELITE (VEE), and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) perimeters.Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Subjects were excluded if they were unable to tolerate ophthalmic imaging or had any ocular or systemic conditions that could affect visual field test results, such as age-related macular degeneration, peripheral retinal disease, or severe glaucoma. Eligible subjects were assessed at 1 visit with all perimeters for total bilateral acquisition time, mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), foveal threshold (FT), visual field index (VFI), false positives and false negatives, and administered a questionnaire.Results: A total of 54 subjects completed the study. Mean bilateral visual field acquisition time differences were significant between TEMPO and HFA (p < 0.001) and TEMPO and VEE (p < 0.001), and not significant between HFA and VEE (p = 0.34). Mean MD differences were not significant between TEMPO and HFA (p = 0.96) and were significant for TEMPO and VEE (p = 0.01) and HFA and VEE (p = 0.02). Mean PSD differences were not significant between TEMPO and HFA (p = 0.27), TEMPO and VEE (p = 0.72), or HFA and VEE (p = 0.72). Mean foveal threshold differences were significant between TEMPO and HFA (p < 0.001), TEMPO and VEE (p < 0.001), and HFA and VEE (p < 0.001). A significantly higher percentage of subjects reported agreement that the testing was “Easy” to perform with the TEMPO compared to HFA (p < 0.001), TEMPO compared to VEE (p = 0.006), and with VEE compared to HFA (p = 0.002).Conclusion: The results suggest similar summary metrics between the HFA, TEMPO, and VEE perimeters. There was faster acquisition time with the TEMPO. These results also indicate the potential for streamlined clinical workflow.Keywords: perimetry, visual field, glaucoma