Comparion of central and peripheral viual field propertie in the Optic Neuriti Treatment Trial Original Reearch Article

PURPOE: To compare the reult of peripheral kinetic viual field teting and central tatic perimetry for patient enrolled in the Optic Neuriti Treatment Trial to determine (1) whether lo and recovery of viual field enitivity in the far periphery wa different from that oberved in the central viual field and (2) whether the far peripheral viual field provided additional ueful information that wa not available in the central viual field reult. Abtract METHOD: Both affected and fellow eye of 448 patient with optic neuriti in the Optic Neuriti Treatment Trial were evaluated according to the trial protocol during the patient’ firt 3 year in the tudy. Central tatic viual field tet were performed with program 30-2 on the Humphrey Field Analyzer, and peripheral kinetic teting conited of plotting the I3e and II4e iopter on the Goldmann perimeter. Both tet procedure were conducted according to the trial protocol, and quality control aement and clinical evaluation were performed on all the viual field. REULT: For both affected and fellow eye at all 11 viit, there wa a greater number of abnormal viual field in the central tatic perimetry reult than in the peripheral kinetic data. Only 2.9% of affected eye had an abnormal peripheral viual field with a normal Humphrey mean deviation during year 1. At baeline, 97.1% of affected eye had an abnormal Humphrey mean deviation on central tatic teting, wherea only 69.9% had abnormal peripheral kinetic viual field. Approximately 80% of the I3e and II4e iopter for affected eye that were abnormal at baeline were within normal limit at 30 day, but it took until week 19 for even 70% of the Humphrey mean deviation to return to normal. In addition, the II4e iopter (more peripheral than the I3e iopter) that were abnormal at baeline howed a omewhat greater percentage of improvement from baeline through day 30 than the abnormal I3e iopter. Although thi difference i tatitically ignificant, it i probably not clinically ignificant. For viit after week 19, approximately 25% to 30% of affected eye had an abnormal Humphrey mean deviation, wherea only 10% to 15% of peripheral kinetic field were abnormal. CONCLUION: For the affected eye in optic neuriti, the central viual field how greater abnormalitie than the far peripheral viual field. When the reult obtained through Humphrey automated central tatic viual field and Goldmann peripheral kinetic iopter are compared, the far periphery appear to recover more rapidly and more completely than the central field, at leat in more evere cae of optic neuriti. In mot cae, recovery in optic neuriti can probably be monitored effectively with automated perimetry of the central viual field alone. However, in cae of evere lo of the central viual field, a peripheral kinetic viual field obtained with a Goldmann perimeter may provide additional information about the patient’ viion in the far periphery