목적: 신체장해판정에서 이용되고 있는 골드만 시야계를 험프리 시야계의 동적시야검사로 대체할 수 있는지 알아보기 위해 두 시야계 에 나타난 정상 시야의 범위를 알아보고자 하였다. 대상과 방법: 정상인 35명 70안을 대상으로 골드만과 험프리 시야계의 동적 시야검사를 시행한 후, 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 240°, 270°, 300°, 330°의 12개 경선의 시야를 비교하였다. 두 검사계간 시야의 최대치를 동일하게 보정하여 비교하였고, McBride 신체장해 판정에서 사용하고 있는 시야와 비교하였다. 결과: 골드만과 험프리 시야계는 비슷한 타원형의 시야를 나타내었지만 골드만 시야계가 조금 넓은 시야를 보였다. 이 값을 McBride의 정상시야와 비교했을 때 양안 모두 험프리 자동시야계의 경우 작은 범위를 나타내고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 결론: 본 연구의 결과는 험프리 시야계의 동적시야검사가 골드만 시야계보다 좁은 시야 범위를 나타내며 신체장해 판정에 험프리 시야 계를 이용할 경우 보정이 필요할 수 있음을 시사한다.

Purpose: To show Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry can be substituted for Goldmann perimetry, which has been used in the field of disability evaluation field, the differences of normal visual fields between two perimetries were evaluated. Methods: Goldmann and Humphrey automated kinetic perimetries were performed simultaneously in 70 eyes of 35 normal healthy Koreans who had no specific ophthalmologic disease at 12 meridians; 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 240°, 270°, 300°, and 330°. The mean values of field in each case were compared. In addition, the corrected values were obtained through the calculation of the difference in the two maximal fields. Results: The visual fields of Humphrey and Goldmann kinetic perimetries showed a similar oval shape, but the fields of Goldmann were statistically significantly wider than the Humphrey fields. As the values of Humphrey were compared with the original data of Goldmann, all values of the visual field were narrow. Conclusions: The visual fields by Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry were smaller than those by Goldmann perimetry. Therefore, if Humphrey kinetic perimetry is used for the evaluation of visual disability, the visual field should be evaluated after the correction.

Purpose: To show Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry can be substituted for Goldmann perimetry, which has been used in the field of disability evaluation field, the differences of normal visual fields between two perimetries were evaluated. Methods: Goldmann and Humphrey automated kinetic perimetries were performed simultaneously in 70 eyes of 35 normal healthy Koreans who had no specific ophthalmologic disease at 12 meridians; 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 240°, 270°, 300°, and 330°. The mean values of field in each case were compared. In addition, the corrected values were obtained through the calculation of the difference in the two maximal fields. Results: The visual fields of Humphrey and Goldmann kinetic perimetries showed a similar oval shape, but the fields of Goldmann were statistically significantly wider than the Humphrey fields. As the values of Humphrey were compared with the original data of Goldmann, all values of the visual field were narrow. Conclusions: The visual fields by Humphrey automated kinetic perimetry were smaller than those by Goldmann perimetry. Therefore, if Humphrey kinetic perimetry is used for the evaluation of visual disability, the visual field should be evaluated after the correction.