UC San Diego

Purpose

Visual field (VF) results that show more test points outside normal limits on the pattern deviation map than on the total deviation map have been assumed to be evidence of unreliable VF results. We propose the term pattern reversal to describe this VF finding and explore its association with paracentral loss.

Design

Retrospective cohort and case-control studies.

Participants

Glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients who completed VF testing in Veteran's Affairs ophthalmology or optometry clinics.

Methods

In the cohort study, VF results were included that demonstrated pattern reversal. The area of pattern reversal was categorized as peripheral, paracentral, or mixed (both peripheral and paracentral). In the case-control study, a group of patients with paracentral loss confirmed on 10-2 VF tests were compared with a control group whose VF results were without paracentral loss.

Main outcome measures

In the cohort study, the calculated false-positive (FP) error rates were compared among groups categorized by area of pattern reversal. In the case-control study, the rates of pattern reversal were compared between patients with and without paracentral loss.

Results

Two hundred seventeen eyes of 145 patients were included in the cohort study. Visual field results with pattern reversal and mixed loss had significantly higher FP rates compared with those with paracentral or peripheral loss only (16.25% vs. 6.26% and 8.15%, respectively; P < 0.001). Fifty-five eyes of 41 patients were included in the case group and 55 eyes of 41 patients were included in the control group. Patients with paracentral loss were more likely to have history of pattern reversal compared with those without paracentral loss (58.2% vs. 29.1%; P = 0.004). Twelve eyes with paracentral loss had 24-2 VF results that showed defects on the pattern deviation map, but not on the total deviation map.

Conclusions

Pattern reversal may be associated with paracentral VF loss and is not always associated with elevated FP rates.