Comparison between Fastpac and conventional Humphrey perimetry

Abstract

As part of the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project, a substudy was performed to determine the efficacy of the newly released Fastpac program for the Humphrey Field Analyser. A comparison was performed of the Fastpac and conventional full threshold 24-2 fields obtained in 39 eyes of 36 participants. Also a comparison study was performed of the standard and non-standard 80-point screening tests to the standard 24-2 full threshold test in 23 eyes of 23 participants.In the full threshold comparison there was 100% agreement between the two with Fastpac being 32% to 39% faster than standard. In the 80-point screening test comparison, nonstandard was no faster than standard. Sensitivities were 17/17 (1.0) for nonstandard and 15/18 (0.83) for standard, as compared with the standard 24-2 full threshold test.Fastpac software offers accurate screening and threshold testing in less time than the standard algorithm.