OCTOPUS 900視野計を用いた静的視野によるVisual Field Score，Functional Field Score，Functional Vision Scoreの測定

Measurement of Visual Field Score, Functional Field Score, Functional Vision Score by static visual field using OCTOPUS 900 perimeter

要約　目的：Visual Field Score（VFS），Functional Field Score（FFS），Functional Vision Score（FVS）について，OCTOPUS 900視野計（OP）で測定した値と，ゴールドマン視野計（GP）で測定した値の比較を行う。OPによるVFSの測定時間と疲労度を調べる。

対象と方法：対象は同意を得た140名の患者（男性79名，女性61名，平均年齢71.0±11.8歳）。GP Ⅲ/4e視標で動的視野を測定後，Colenbrander-Kamoエクセルシートに手入力でVFS，FFS，FVSを算出した。OPのカスタムプログラム，Colenbrander grid test（CGT）で静的視野によるVFSを測定後，表計算エクセルのマクロを使用してFFS，FVSを自動計算した。CGTは偽陽性，偽陰性がそれぞれ33％未満を信頼性良好群，それ以上を信頼性不良群とした。OPとGP，それぞれの結果から得たスコアの相関について，統計解析を行った。FFSクラス，FVSクラスの比較を行った。CGTの測定時間と疲労の有無について集計した。

結果：信頼性良好群のOPによるVFSは82.5±20.1，GPによるVFSは86.6±17.4であった（r＝0.77，p＜0.001）。OPによるFFSは90.1±15.8，GPによるFFSは91.7±12.6であった（r＝0.73，p＜0.001）。OPによるFVSは87.9±19.6，GPによるFVSは89.1±17.1であった（r＝0.88，p＜0.001）。信頼性良好群のFFSクラスは75％，FVSクラスは78％がOPとGPで同じクラスであった。信頼性不良群のFFSクラスは63％，FVSクラスは75％がOPとGPで同じクラスであった。症例全体で，CGTの測定時間は片眼230.5±48.9秒で，疲労なしが81％であった。

結論：FFS，FVSは，OPとGPでほぼ同等だったと考えられた。CGTの測定時間は両眼で平均8分程度であり，ほとんどの人が疲労なしに検査終了した。

Abstract　Purpose：Visual Field Score（VFS）, Functional Field Score（FFS）, and Functional Vision Score（FVS）were compared with the values measured using the OCTOPUS 900 perimeter（OP）and the Goldmann perimeter（GP）. We also measured time and interviewed fatigue level of VFS by OP.

Subject and method：The subjects were 140 patients（male 79, female 61, avg 71.0±11.8 years old）with whom we could obtain informed consent. After measuring the kinetic visual field using the GP Ⅲ/4e, VFS, FFS and FVS were calculated manually using the Colenbrander-Kamo Excel sheet. After measuring VFS by static visual field using Colenbrander grid test（CGT）which is a custom program of OP, FFS and FVS were automatically calculated using Excel macro. In CGT, the false positive and false negative each were less than 33％ in the group with good reliability, and those with more than 33％ were in the group with poor reliability. Statistical analysis was performed on the correlation between the scores obtained from the results of OP and GP. The FFS class and FVS class were compared. The CGT measurement time and fatigue were also counted.

Results：In the group with good reliability, VFS by OP was 82.5±20.1 and VFS by GP was 86.6±17.4（r＝0.77, p＜0.001）. FFS by OP was 90.1±15.8, and FFS by GP was 91.7±12.6（r＝0.73, p＜0.001）. FVS by OP was 87.9±19.6, and FVS by GP was 89.1±17.1（r＝0.88, p＜0.001）. 75％ of the FFS class and 78％ of the FVS class of the good reliability group were in the same class in the OP and GP. 63％ of FFS class and 75％ of FVS class of the poor reliability group were in the same class in OP and GP. In all cases, the CGT measurement time was 230.5±48.9 seconds for one eye, and 81％ finished the test without fatigue.

Conclusion：FFS and FVS were almost equivalent in OP and GP. The measurement time of CGT was about 8 minutes on average with both eyes, and most people finished CGT fatigueless.