Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare real-world outcomes of Henson 9000 perimeter and Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in glaucoma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study recruited patients diagnosed with glaucoma who underwent Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) Standard perimetry (HFA, Carl Zeiss Meditec), followed by Zippy Adaptive Threshold Algorithm (ZATA) Standard perimetry (Henson 9000, Topcon Healthcare). Test durations, global indices, and reliability indices were compared. A subgroup analysis was done for patients classed as early [mean deviation (MD) ≥ -6 dB] and moderate-severe (MD < -6 dB) glaucoma. Fatigue-adjusted subgroup analysis was done, including right eyes only. RESULTS: 76 eyes of 44 patients were included. Henson 9000 results were within normal reliability limits, although they showed higher false positives (FP) (by 6.79%; p < 0.001), false negatives (FN) (by 23.17%; p < 0.001), and fixation losses (FL) (by 9.5%; p = 0.018). Overall, Henson tests showed a slight increase in MD (+1.01 dB, p = 0.004), with no significant differences in duration (p = 0.083) or pattern standard deviation (PSD) (p = 0.742). A strong positive correlation between devices was observed for MD (r = 0.903; p < 0.001) and PSD (r = 0.850; p < 0.001). In early glaucoma (n = 57), mean Henson test duration was shorter by 1.06 minutes (p < 0.001) with no significant difference in MD results (p = 0.083). In all right eyes (n = 38), there were no statistically significant differences in mean duration, MD, and PSD between both devices (p = 0.369, 0.168, 0.537, respectively). CONCLUSION: Outcomes with the Henson 9000 were reliable, with measured global indices strongly correlated with HFA results. In early glaucoma, outcomes were comparable to HFA with shorter tests, suggesting the potential of the Henson 9000 as a screening tool for early glaucoma. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Poli M. Comparison of the Real-world Performance of Henson 9000 Perimeter and Humphrey Field Analyzer in Glaucoma Patients. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2025;19(1):55-63.