Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy

Objective — To evaluate the effect of the frequency of retinoprotective therapy courses on perimetry parameters, to compare Octopus 900 perimeter with Octopus 600 perimeter, and to assess threshold perimetry results of G-dynamic versus 24-2 programs. Material and Methods — The study involved 17 pati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dmitry A. Dorofeev, Valery P. Erichev, Elena V. Kirilik, Ilya V. Kokorin, Polina A. Rakova, Olga B. Solovieva, Artem Z. Tsyganov, Anastasiya S. Chemyakina, Valery F. Ekgardt
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Limited liability company «Science and Innovations» (Saratov) 2022-03-01
Series:Russian Open Medical Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://romj.org/node/444
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849697076064026624
author Dmitry A. Dorofeev
Valery P. Erichev
Elena V. Kirilik
Ilya V. Kokorin
Polina A. Rakova
Olga B. Solovieva
Artem Z. Tsyganov
Anastasiya S. Chemyakina
Valery F. Ekgardt
author_facet Dmitry A. Dorofeev
Valery P. Erichev
Elena V. Kirilik
Ilya V. Kokorin
Polina A. Rakova
Olga B. Solovieva
Artem Z. Tsyganov
Anastasiya S. Chemyakina
Valery F. Ekgardt
author_sort Dmitry A. Dorofeev
collection DOAJ
description Objective — To evaluate the effect of the frequency of retinoprotective therapy courses on perimetry parameters, to compare Octopus 900 perimeter with Octopus 600 perimeter, and to assess threshold perimetry results of G-dynamic versus 24-2 programs. Material and Methods — The study involved 17 patients (34 eyes) diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma of advanced stage. Group 1 included subjects receiving a course of Retinalamin every 3 months. Group 2 comprised patients undergoing Retinalamin therapeutics every 6 months. Results — At the onset of the study via G-dynamic and 24-2 programs, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between the groups in mean deviation of retinal photosensitivity (MD) and pattern standard deviation of mean retinal photosensitivity (PSD). However, the absolute values differed between groups and between programs. On average, the differences in MD and PSD values obtained in the photosensitivity study with G-dynamic vs. 24-2 programs were -0.36 dB (CI 95%: -4.27; 3.54) and 0.63 dB (CI 95%: 2.37; -1.11), respectively. Hence, studies performed via 24-2 and G-dynamic programs yielded comparable results (no statistically significant differences). However, they could not be identical due to different spatial arrangement of points in different programs. Conclusion — As a result of conducted treatment, retinal photosensitivity did not exhibit statistically significant changes; however, we observed positive dynamics in both groups in MD and PSD parameters of mean retinal photosensitivity. Different devices (Octopus 600 and Octopus 900 perimeters) and different programs (24-2, G-dynamic) yielded different outcomes due to their technical features and capabilities of reproducibility; however, these differences were not statistically significant.
format Article
id doaj-art-6e6401cc3a724e709b8ddb4679a61186
institution DOAJ
issn 2304-3415
language English
publishDate 2022-03-01
publisher Limited liability company «Science and Innovations» (Saratov)
record_format Article
series Russian Open Medical Journal
spelling doaj-art-6e6401cc3a724e709b8ddb4679a611862025-08-20T03:19:17ZengLimited liability company «Science and Innovations» (Saratov)Russian Open Medical Journal2304-34152022-03-01111e010910.15275/rusomj.2022.0109Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapyDmitry A. DorofeevValery P. ErichevElena V. KirilikIlya V. KokorinPolina A. RakovaOlga B. SolovievaArtem Z. TsyganovAnastasiya S. ChemyakinaValery F. EkgardtObjective — To evaluate the effect of the frequency of retinoprotective therapy courses on perimetry parameters, to compare Octopus 900 perimeter with Octopus 600 perimeter, and to assess threshold perimetry results of G-dynamic versus 24-2 programs. Material and Methods — The study involved 17 patients (34 eyes) diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma of advanced stage. Group 1 included subjects receiving a course of Retinalamin every 3 months. Group 2 comprised patients undergoing Retinalamin therapeutics every 6 months. Results — At the onset of the study via G-dynamic and 24-2 programs, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between the groups in mean deviation of retinal photosensitivity (MD) and pattern standard deviation of mean retinal photosensitivity (PSD). However, the absolute values differed between groups and between programs. On average, the differences in MD and PSD values obtained in the photosensitivity study with G-dynamic vs. 24-2 programs were -0.36 dB (CI 95%: -4.27; 3.54) and 0.63 dB (CI 95%: 2.37; -1.11), respectively. Hence, studies performed via 24-2 and G-dynamic programs yielded comparable results (no statistically significant differences). However, they could not be identical due to different spatial arrangement of points in different programs. Conclusion — As a result of conducted treatment, retinal photosensitivity did not exhibit statistically significant changes; however, we observed positive dynamics in both groups in MD and PSD parameters of mean retinal photosensitivity. Different devices (Octopus 600 and Octopus 900 perimeters) and different programs (24-2, G-dynamic) yielded different outcomes due to their technical features and capabilities of reproducibility; however, these differences were not statistically significant.https://romj.org/node/444glaucomaperimetryretinoprotectionneuroprotectionretinalaminoptical coherence tomography
spellingShingle Dmitry A. Dorofeev
Valery P. Erichev
Elena V. Kirilik
Ilya V. Kokorin
Polina A. Rakova
Olga B. Solovieva
Artem Z. Tsyganov
Anastasiya S. Chemyakina
Valery F. Ekgardt
Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy
Russian Open Medical Journal
glaucoma
perimetry
retinoprotection
neuroprotection
retinalamin
optical coherence tomography
title Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy
title_full Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy
title_fullStr Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy
title_full_unstemmed Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy
title_short Perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy
title_sort perimetry criteria for assessing the effectiveness of retinoprotective therapy
topic glaucoma
perimetry
retinoprotection
neuroprotection
retinalamin
optical coherence tomography
url https://romj.org/node/444
work_keys_str_mv AT dmitryadorofeev perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT valeryperichev perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT elenavkirilik perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT ilyavkokorin perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT polinaarakova perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT olgabsolovieva perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT artemztsyganov perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT anastasiyaschemyakina perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy
AT valeryfekgardt perimetrycriteriaforassessingtheeffectivenessofretinoprotectivetherapy