SITA Algorithms Performance for Optopol PTS 910 Automated Perimeter

Main Article Content

Drosatou Dimitra
Chandrinos Aristeidis


A variety of different types of automated perimeters are in use around the world, although all types follow the main characteristics of Humphrey (Carl Zeiss) or Octopus (Haag-Streit Diagnostics) perimeters.

Purpose: To compare perimetric test duration using SITA Standard and SITA Fast algorithms in Optopol PTS 910 Automated Perimeter, for normal healthy subjects. As the subjects were healthy it was expected to demonstrate less variability than the glaucoma patients, as the group was of younger age and consequently demonstrated less fatigue and variability during the test that could bias less the results.

Methods: Present study included visual field control tests that were performed to 24 normal subjects, without any vision problem or disease.

Results: The test results led to the conclusion that the time duration was the same for SITA Standard and slightly increased for SITA Fast, with Optopol PTS 910 perimeter.

Visual field, SITA standard, SITA fast, optopol perimeter

Article Details

How to Cite
Dimitra, D., & Aristeidis, C. (2020). SITA Algorithms Performance for Optopol PTS 910 Automated Perimeter. Asian Journal of Research and Reports in Ophthalmology, 3(4), 41-47. Retrieved from
Short Research Article


Sharma P, Sample P, Zangwill L, Shcuman J. Diagnostic tools for glaucoma detection and management. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53(1):17–32.

DOI: 10.1016/j. survophthal. 2008.08.003

Roggen X, Herman K, Van Malderen L, Devos M, Spileers W. Different strategies for humphrey automated perimery, fastpack, sita standard and sita fast in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. Bull. Soc. Belge Ophtalmol. 2001;279:23-33.

Chandrinos A. Aspects of a perimetric learning index. Thesis for doctor of philosophy, Cardiff University, Wales. UK; 2017.

Flanagan JG, Wild JM, Trope GE. Evaluation of FASTPAC, a new strategy for threshold estimation with the Humphrey field analyzer, in a glaucomatous population. Ophthalmology. 1993;100(6): 949-954.

Chandrinos A. Methods of threshold estimation (algorithms) and new techniques in perimetry. Asian Journal of Research and Reports in Ophthalmology. 2020;3(3):21-40.

Barkana Y, Bakshi E, Goldich Y, Morad Y, Kaplan A, Avni I, Zadok D. Characterization and comparison of the 10-2 SITA-standard and fast algorithms. Scientific World Journal. 2012; 821802.

Carroll JN, Johnson CA. Visual field testing: From one medical student to another.; 2013.

Chandrinos A. Aspects of automated perimetry. LAMBERT Academic Publishing; 2020.

ISBN: 978-620-2-56290-4.

Denniss J, McKendrick AM, Turpin A. Towards patient-tailored perimetry: Automated perimetry can be improved by seeding procedures with patient-specific structural information. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2013;2(4):3.

Graves D. Visual field testing: How to avoid fixation losses. Ophthalmic Professional. 2013;2:26-27

Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Patella A. Effective Perimetry - Zeiss Visual Field Primer, 4th Edit; 2012.

Lamparter J, Aliyeva S, Schulze A, Berres M, Pfeiffer N, Hoffmann E. Standard automated perimetry versus matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry in subjects with ocular hypertension and healthy control subjects. Plos/One; 2013.

Bengtsson B, Heijl A. SITA Fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. Description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76(4):431–437.

Sekhar GC, Naduvilath TJ, Lakkai M, Jayakumar AJ, Pandi GT, Mandal AK, Honavar SG. Sensitivity of Swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1303-1308.

Nordmann JP, Brion F, Hamard P, Mouton-Chopin D. Evaluation of the Humphrey perimetry programs SITA standard and SITA fast in normal probands and patients with glaucoma [in French]. J Fr Ophtalmol. 1998;21(8):549–554.

Heijl A, Patela V, Chong L, Iwase A, Leung Chr, Tuulonen A, Lee G, Callan Th, Bengtsson B. A new SITA perimetric threshold testing algorithm: Construction and a multicenter clinical study. Ophthalmol. 2019;198:154–165