동적 자동시야계를 이용한 양안 복시시야검사의 유용성

Usefulness of the Binocular Double Vision Field Using Kinetic Automated Perimetry in Diplopia

Purpose: To compare the binocular double vision field for diplopia with Goldmann perimetry and Humphrey automated kinetic perimeter. Methods: Fifty of 70 healthy volunteers with no ocular problem wore the glasses of 14 prism diopters(PD)(7 prism lenses on both eyes, base-in), and 20 of the 70 wore the glasses of 20 PD(10 prism lenses on both eyes, base-out) and of 5 PD(only on right eye, base-up), and then esotropia, exotropia and hypertropia were induced in each group, respectively. Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry and Goldmann perimetry were performed simultaneously and their results were analyzed using mean degrees of meridians and binocular single vision(BSV) score. Results: Diplopia fields of Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry and Goldmann perimetry showed a similar overlap. Mean degree of meridians of Goldmann perimetry and Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry were 34.49/30.26, 32.08/28.31 and 31.93/27.09 degrees at esotropia, exotropia and hypertropia, respectively. BSV scores were 80.43/73.70, 74.34/67.13 and 67.16/62.13%, respectively. Diplopia field areas of Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry were significant larger than those of Goldmann (p<0.05). Conclusions: This study shows that if results of Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry are corrected by means of multiplying by 1.14, diplopia tests using Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry may be substituted for Goldmann perimetry.