Wanna Buy a Screening VF Machine. Best Options?

[Optogal]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What are the best screening fields machines? It seems there are two:

1. FDT
2. Oculus Easyfield

Anyone know the pros/cons of these? Which is more portable? Which is more expensive? Which is more accurate/sensitive?

Thanks!

 

[syma]

We have the FDT but would prefer to have the oculus easyfield.

FDT is more portable than the humphrey's but I wouldn't actually consider it something you'd want to carry around with you. Whereas the oculus easyfield is often used for domiciliary work.

Both have quick screening programs. But I find the FDT difficult for some patients to understand. Not sure why, but we're often running the demo for them to 'understand' the concept of the test. Even with the print out of what to expect.

Hmmm... the specificity and sensitivity will depend on the program run. *I* find the FDT really good at finding whopping scotomas, and glaucomatous defects, but generally, pretty shyte. I suppose that's what you'd expect as that was the design and purpose of it anyway.

And pricing, I have no idea, because I don't do buying at my clinic. And if I could convince my director to get the Oculus Easyfield, I would, because I would far more prefer it. But we just got a new FDT.

 

[Optogal]

I read that the Easyfield does typical 30-2 assessments. Is it just a screener or can you actually monitor glaucomatous loss using this?

 

[syma]

I read that the Easyfield does typical 30-2 assessments. Is it just a screener or can you actually monitor glaucomatous loss using this?

I reckon you can use any visual field machine out there (within reason) to monitor glaucomatous loss, because it isn't a matter of the test but the results and pattern deviation of the results.

Generally all patients for us over the age of 40 are stuck on a screening visual field assessment.

If I suspect glaucoma, or a patient with FH of glaucoma, or at risk etc etc, I'll do a full threshold test which you can also set to include nasal points. (N-30)Similar to the 30-2 on the Easyfield. Kind of.

If you want a visual field machine to monitor glaucoma, then FDT is a good to have. General use, I'd opt for the Easyfield.

IMO

And what do you mean as screening? Anything set for suprathreshold would be screening. Anything set at threshold which would ultimately take longer anyway, would give you absolute sensitivity values. The FDT and Easyfield both have this capability. Our "screening" is set for 5% (C20-5)

N30-5 threshold for patients as described above. (glaucoma or patients at risk of developing glaucoma)

 

[Optogal]

If you want a visual field machine to monitor glaucoma, then FDT is a good to have. General use, I'd opt for the Easyfield.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Monitor vs. general use? Why is the FDT better for "monitoring"?

The few FDT print outs I've seen seem to show it measures fields in much larger quadrants (not like the 120+ points of a 30-2 printout). It seemed to basically have 16 quadrants or so (or less?).

 

[syma]

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Monitor vs. general use? Why is the FDT better for "monitoring"?

The few FDT print outs I've seen seem to show it measures fields in much larger quadrants (not like the 120+ points of a 30-2 printout). It seemed to basically have 16 quadrants or so (or less?).

The theory of the FDT means that it is supposed to be good at detecting early glaucomatous changes. So if you are *monitoring* glaucoma, then the FDT is good. Because of the technology for measuring sensitivity, the points are larger. It is a 4x4 grid.

My point is that the FDT is so quick, you can screen the average person in 45 seconds or less in each eye.

If you want a general use visual field machine as in one that is effective for all possible defects then you want the Easyfield.

Anyway, either will be good at monitoring glaucoma. The FDT is just supposed to be faster and more effective of detecting early changes.

A really good website:

http://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/ips/perimetryhistory/FDP/index.htm

 

[Meibomian SxN]

What are the best screening fields machines? It seems there are two:

1. FDT
2. Oculus Easyfield

Anyone know the pros/cons of these? Which is more portable? Which is more expensive? Which is more accurate/sensitive?

Thanks!

I've used both and can honestly say they're neck in neck. I don't like the way you have to enter info in the Oculus but it is very lightweight. The FDT is heavier in weight but a bit more patient friendly. Also you need a patch for the Oculus, the FDT automatically blocks the non-testing eye.

 

[Optogal]

I'm planning on lugging it around to different practice locations. So I'm leaning towards the Easyfield due to its portability. But I still have to actually see/handle the device.

 

[eyestrain]

Use the fingers on your hand. Not the greatest sensitivity for subtle defects, but they sure are easy to transport.

 

[Meibomian SxN]

Use the fingers on your hand. Not the greatest sensitivity for subtle defects, but they sure are easy to transport.

Confrontation fields are not a billable procedure. The FDT and Oculus are.