Virtual Visual Fields vs. Traditional Tabletop Options: "Status Quo Guide"

As eye care technology evolves, practitioners are increasingly faced with the decision between adopting portable, efficient solutions or sticking with trusted, traditional methods. Virtual visual fields have emerged as a game-changer, offering a sleek alternative to the longstanding tabletop devices like the Humphrey Field Analyzer. But with both options presenting unique advantages, how do you choose the best fit for your practice? Selecting the right tool can make all the difference in patient satisfaction, workflow efficiency, and diagnostic accuracy – ultimately shaping the future of your practice.

Comparing Virtual Visual Fields vs. Traditional Tabletop Options

There are many factors to consider when choosing a new visual field. Here is a complete breakdown of how each option stacks up.

Size and Design

When considering the size and design of visual field testing options, virtual visual field devices offer a clear advantage in terms of compact convenience. Virtual visual fields typically involve lightweight, portable headsets that can easily be stored or transported between exam rooms or different practice locations. This flexibility makes virtual visual field systems particularly well-suited for clinics with limited space, practices with multiple locations, and offices with a lot of demand. The sleek, streamlined design reduces the need for dedicated space and complex setups.

In contrast, traditional tabletop visual field machines are often large, stationary devices that require significant space within the exam room. Their bulky design, along with the need for a dedicated area to accommodate both the equipment and the patient, can be a drawback for practices with space constraints. For smaller offices or those looking to optimize space, these systems may pose challenges, limiting their utility compared to the more versatile virtual visual field options.

Exam Efficiency

In comparing Virtual Field technology to traditional tabletop perimetry, the efficiency of the exam process stands out as a critical distinction. Efficiency in eye care is crucial; and Virtual Field technology allows for faster exams by streamlining the testing process, reducing patient fatigue, and offering a more user-friendly interface. This not only increases the accuracy of results but also enhances patient compliance and reduces the likelihood of errors due to patient movement or discomfort. Additionally, Virtual Field platforms often come with improved onboarding tools, allowing for easier patient setup and a more personalized experience.

Traditional tabletop perimetry, while reliable, can be time-consuming and requires more hands-on involvement from both the clinician and the patient. Accessibility and patient comfort can be a challenge, leading to less accurate outcomes, especially in longer tests. 

Patient Experience

When comparing the patient experience of each option, several key differences emerge. Virtual visual field technology offers a more accessible and faster solution for practices looking to modernize quickly. Patients find virtual visual fields easier to use, as the setup requires minimal adjustment and can be performed without the need of an eye patch. This streamlined process often reduces anxiety, leading to a more comfortable patient experience.

In contrast, traditional tabletop methods involve bulky machinery, requiring precise positioning and extended periods of concentration. These methods can feel cumbersome, particularly for patients with physical limitations or those prone to discomfort in prolonged static positions.

Virtual visual fields, such as Virtual Field, on the other hand, encourage higher patient engagement by incorporating audio instructions and encouragements in the patients preferred language. The portability and convenience of this technology make it ideal for diverse practice settings, enhancing both patient comfort and the overall experience of the visual field testing process.

Accuracy

The accuracy of visual field testing is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring eye diseases. Traditional tabletop perimetry has long been a standard method, relying on a controlled environment to assess peripheral vision. However, it may be influenced by patient variability and environmental factors, which can affect the consistency of results.

Similar to higher end tabletop perimeters, Virtual Field, the leader in virtual visual fields, leverages automated eye tracking and even includes live video of the patients’ eyes. This ensures accurate and reliable results by minimizing user error and standardizing testing conditions. Dr. James Murphy, a long time user of Virtual Field, even stated that while the devices are fundamentally different, Virtual Field has shown comparable—if not superior—accuracy in clinical evaluations.

Virtual Field also facilitates ongoing monitoring of disease progression, allowing eye care professionals to make informed decisions about patient management. By tailoring treatment plans based on comprehensive and precise visual field data, practitioners can significantly improve patient outcomes and ensure optimal care for those with glaucoma and other visual field-related conditions.

Cost-Effectiveness

When evaluating the cost-effectiveness of virtual visual field testing versus traditional tabletop options, several factors come into play. Virtual visual fields, such as the Virtual Field VF3, are typically more affordable upfront, starting at just $199 per headset per month, with models like the VF3 Pro starting at $399 per headset per month​. Purchase options are available as well, and Virtual Field doesn’t charge additional fees like per-click fees, restocking fees, warranty costs (with the subscription), data storage fees, or deductibles. These affordable and flexible pricing models make Virtual Field advantageous for practices looking for cost-efficient upgrades.

Traditional visual field testing equipment generally requires significant long-term investments in larger, more expensive devices, which can be a barrier for some practices. While these machines may offer robust functionality, their higher initial costs and maintenance expenses can strain budgets. 

Additionally, virtual visual fields provide enhanced equipment flexibility, allowing practices to adapt quickly to evolving needs without the burden of large, fixed costs associated with traditional equipment​. This combination of lower initial investment and adaptability positions virtual visual field testing as a compelling choice for eye care professionals looking to optimize both budget and service delivery.

Why Patients and Doctors Rave About Virtual Field

Virtual Field is taking the eye care industry by storm, with many patients and doctors attesting to its efficiency, user-friendliness, and affordability.

Dr. James Murphy, board-certified ophthalmologist and fellowship-trained glaucoma specialist

Dr. James Murphy, an ophthalmologist and glaucoma specialist, adopted Virtual Field technology to enhance visual field testing for his elderly patients facing mobility issues. Traditional tests often caused discomfort, leading to dissatisfaction and non-compliance. However, the user-friendly wearable headset improved comfort, enabling reliable performance while reducing strain. 

The system’s multilingual audio instructions also enhanced patient engagement, particularly for non-English speakers. This transition streamlined operations, allowing staff to efficiently manage multiple patients. 

The subscription model offered significant cost savings and return on investment for Dr. Murphy, showcasing the financial and operational benefits of modern, patient-centered technology in glaucoma care.

Click to see Dr. Murphy’s full case study here.

Dr. Rosina Cheung, optometrist 

Dr. Rosina Cheung, an optometrist in Ontario, Canada, has effectively integrated Virtual Field technology into her practice, enhancing patient care and operational efficiency. The intuitive design of the system, combined with its robust support, allows for seamless integration into pre-test stations, enabling her staff to manage patients without the need for constant oversight. 

One notable case involved a new patient with vision complaints, where the Virtual Field technology swiftly identified signs of optic neuritis, showcasing its diagnostic capabilities. 

Dr. Cheung appreciates the continuous software updates and technical support, stating that the technology has become essential in her practice, making it a significant asset for improving both patient outcomes and staff productivity

Click to see Dr. Cheung’s full case study here.

Dr. Adam Rosa, optometrist

Dr. Adam Rosa, an optometrist with seven years of experience, transformed his practice by adopting Virtual Field for visual field testing. Previously, his practice relied on an older Humphrey Field Analyzer, which was bulky, often required repairs, and made patient alignment cumbersome. Switching to Virtual Field freed up significant office space and improved workflow efficiency, allowing the device to share a table with other equipment. 

Virtual Field's ease of use, including audio instructions in 38 languages, enabled staff to multitask while tests were conducted seamlessly. Since integrating the device, Dr. Rosa's practice has identified critical conditions, such as early-stage glaucoma, highlighting Virtual Field's ability to catch diagnoses that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. This shift has impressed both his staff and patients, improving overall practice operations.

Click to see Dr. Rosa’s full case study here.

To see how Virtual Field can transform your practice, schedule a demo today and experience the benefits firsthand.