Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Ophthalmology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Comparison of the monocular Humphrey visual field and the binocular Humphrey esterman visual field test for driver licensing in glaucoma subjects in Sweden

Marcelo Ayala

Author affiliations

Glaucoma Department, St. Erik Eye Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Citation and License

BMC Ophthalmology 2012, 12:35  doi:10.1186/1471-2415-12-35

Published: 2 August 2012

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the monocular Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) with the binocular Humphrey Esterman Visual Field (HEVF) for determining whether subjects suffering from glaucoma fulfilled the new medical requirements for possession of a Swedish driver’s license.

Methods

HVF SITA Fast 24–2 full threshold (monocularly) and HEVF (binocularly) were performed consecutively on the same day on 40 subjects with glaucomatous damage of varying degrees in both eyes. Assessment of results was constituted as either “pass” or “fail”, according to the new medical requirements put into effect September 1, 2010 by the Swedish Transport Agency.

Results

Forty subjects were recruited and participated in the study. Sixteen subjects passed both tests, and sixteen subjects failed both tests. Eight subjects passed the HEFV but failed the HVF. There was a significant difference between HEVF and HVF (χ2, p = 0.004). There were no subjects who passed the HVF, but failed the HEVF.

Conclusions

The monocular visual field test (HVF) gave more specific information about the location and depth of the defects, and therefore is the overwhelming method of choice for use in diagnostics. The binocular visual field test (HEVF) seems not be as efficient as the HVF in finding visual field defects in glaucoma subjects, and is therefore doubtful in evaluating visual capabilities in traffic situations.

Keywords:
Visual fields; Glaucoma; Driving fitness