首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

两种快速静态视野检查法临床应用比较
引用本文:王于蓝,周秀莉,徐承慧. 两种快速静态视野检查法临床应用比较[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2002, 22(4): 348-349,363
作者姓名:王于蓝  周秀莉  徐承慧
作者单位:上海第二医科大学新华医院眼科 上海200092(王于蓝,周秀莉),上海第二医科大学新华医院眼科 上海200092(徐承慧)
摘    要:目的:比较两种快速静态阈值测定法,趋势导向视野检测法(TOP)与动态平衡视野测定法(DYNAMIC)临床应用特点及价值。方法:应用OCTOPUS 101视野计对61例患者进行TOP与DYNAMIC程度视野测定。结果:TOP程序平均用时2.71min,DYNAMIC程序7.20min。二者测得平均缺损、假阳性率无显著差异;缺损方差、假阴性率存在统计学差异。两种方法测得结果有可比性。结论:TOP与DYNAMIC均为有效短时程视野程序。前者适用于各种病情总体阈值测试,后者倾向于局灶性视野改变的测定与随访。

关 键 词:视野 视野计 趋势导向视里检测法 动态平衡视野测定法
文章编号:0258-5898(2002)04-0348-03

Clinical Comparison Between TOP and DYNAMIC Automated Static Perimetry
WANG Yu_lan,ZHOU Xiu_li,XU Cheng_hui. Clinical Comparison Between TOP and DYNAMIC Automated Static Perimetry[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University:Medical Science, 2002, 22(4): 348-349,363
Authors:WANG Yu_lan  ZHOU Xiu_li  XU Cheng_hui
Abstract:Objective To compare and evaluate two fast automated static perimetry, TOP and DYNAMIC, used in clinic and their evaluation. Methods Sixty-one patients with normal or different kinds of visual field abnormalities accepted both TOP and DYNAMIC examinations by Octopus 101 perimetry. Results The mean examination time of TOP was 2.71min while DYNAMIC was 7.20 min. MS, MD and false positive rate showed no statistical significant difference, while LV and false negative rate did. Two fast exam methods were comparable. Conclusion Both TOP and DYNAMIC are effective fast visual field testing. TOP is suitable to threshold scanning or testing for all kinds of diseases; DYNAMIC is appropriate to regional or focal visual field measuring and follow-up.
Keywords:visual field  perimetry  tendency oriented perimetry  dynamic examination strategy
本文献已被 CNKI 维普 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号