One of the key advantages for clinicians of all health professions is the dynamic and rapidly growing research base to better understand disease and develop new interventions to improve detection and treatment outcomes.

Eye care is no exception, and as a heavily imaging-dependent clinical specialty, significant changes in technology have filtered from the academic setting all the way through to practical clinical applications. Indeed, we now see fundus cameras and optical coherence tomography devices available in most primary care settings. However, with new technologies and treatments on the horizon, how should optometrists decide which to invest in and integrate into their clinical services?

While imaging technologies have changed clinical practice significantly over recent years, visual field testing paradigms have remained largely unchanged, with standard automated perimetry (SAP) the traditional approach. Recently there has been significant scientific interest in virtual reality (VR)-based perimetry methods, but with many proprietary devices now commercially available in the UK market, questions are often asked if these are suitable to replace existing SAP instruments. 

We know from experience that many patients find undertaking SAP difficult and tiresome – it may even be impossible for those with mobility or dexterity issues – while for clinicians it can be frustrating if results are variable or require several repeats to obtain meaningful results. Therefore, any innovation in the visual field market is a good thing, particularly where it makes testing more user-friendly and the results more reliable and may save practice space.