Characterization and comparison of the 10-2 SITA-standard and fast algorithms

Comparison of 30-2 Standard and Fast programs of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer for perimetry in patients with intracranial tumors

PURPOSE

To find out whether 30-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Fast is comparable to 30-2 SITA Standard as a tool for perimetry among the patients with intracranial tumors.

METHODS

This was a prospective cross-sectional study involving 80 patients aged ≥18 years with imaging proven intracranial tumors and visual acuity better than 20/60. The patients underwent multiple visual field examinations using the two algorithms till consistent and repeatable results were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 140 eyes of 80 patients were analyzed. Almost 60% of patients undergoing perimetry with SITA Standard required two or more sessions to obtain consistent results, whereas the same could be obtained in 81.42% with SITA Fast in the first session itself. Of 140 eyes, 70 eyes had recordable field defects and the rest had no defects as detected by either of the two algorithms. Mean deviation (MD) (P = 0.56), pattern standard deviation (PSD) (P = 0.22), visual field index (P = 0.83) and number of depressed points at P < 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0.5% on MD and PSD probability plots showed no statistically significant difference between two algorithms. Bland-Altman test showed that considerable variability existed between two algorithms.

CONCLUSION

Perimetry performed by SITA Standard and SITA Fast algorithm of Humphrey Field Analyzer gives comparable results among the patients of intracranial tumors. Being more time efficient and with a shorter learning curve, SITA Fast my be recommended as a standard test for the purpose of perimetry among these patients.