A practical approach to measuring the visual field component of fitness to drive

AIMS: To determine the level of agreement between merged monocular visual field tests (the integrated visual field) and the binocular Esterman visual field test in classifying patients' visual status for UK legal fitness to drive. To examine the link between these two tests and the useful field of view (UFOV) test, a test which is considered to be a surrogate for the visual capability for safe driving. METHODS: Primary open angle glaucoma patients with bilateral overlapping visual field defects were recruited prospectively. Patients performed the bilateral monocular field tests (to generate the integrated visual field), the Esterman test and the UFOV test on the same visit. Patients were classified as "pass" or "fail" by both the integrated visual field and the Esterman test. UFOV risk scores were calculated for each patient. RESULTS: 65 patients were recruited. Substantial agreement was found between the integrated visual field and the Esterman test in classifying patients as "pass" or "fail" (kappa = 0.69). No patients classified as "pass" by the integrated visual field test were classified as "fail" by the Esterman test. Eight patients who were classified as "pass" by the Esterman test were classified as "fail" by the integrated visual field test. The UFOV risk characteristics of these eight patients suggested they were more similar to those of the 13 patients who were classified as "fail" by both the tests, than the 44 patients who were classified as "pass" by both tests. CONCLUSIONS: The integrated visual field test agrees well with the current method (Esterman) of classifying visual fields with regard to legal fitness to drive in the United Kingdom in patients with glaucoma; it appears superior to the current method in identifying those with reduced fitness to drive as measured by the UFOV. The integrated visual field test could perform a valuable screening or diagnostic role in the assessment of glaucoma patients' fitness to drive.     

Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life

PURPOSE: To determine how glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients' rating of their vision correlates with Esterman binocular visual field testing and other visual function tests. METHODS: One hundred ninety-one glaucoma patients and 46 glaucoma suspect patients underwent binocular visual field testing and evaluated their vision using the linear rating scale and time-tradeoff utility tests, the National Eye Institute Visual Functional Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) quality-of-life instruments. RESULTS: The mean Esterman score was 88.2 +/- 17.4 for the glaucoma subjects and 95.2 + 6.9 for glaucoma suspect subjects (maximum score 100). On a scale from 0 (blind) to 100 (ideal), the mean rating of vision for glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspect patients was 74.8 +/- 17.3 and 78.9 +/- 18.5, respectively. The Esterman test correlated moderately with the overall NEI VFQ-25 score (partial correlation coefficient (PCC) = 0.32, P = 0.001), but only weakly with the linear rating scale (PCC = 0.17, P = 0.02), and the time-tradeoff (PCC = 0.14, P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Utility values that glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients assign to their vision do not correlate well with Esterman results. A challenge for the future is the design of clinical tests of vision that better correlate with patient perceptions.     

The relationship between difficulty in daily living and binocular visual field in patients with glaucoma

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between difficulty in daily living and binocular visual field in patients with glaucoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We examined 144 patients with glaucoma who had bilateral visual field disturbances. The mean age was 68 +/- 13 years. Difficulty in daily living was assessed using a questionnaire consisting of 10 questions on daily activities. Each response was rated on a scale of 1 to 4: with a score of 4 for "no difficulty", 3 for "some difficulty", 2 for "great difficulty" and 1 for "cannot manage at all". The binocular visual field was assessed using the Esterman visual field test and the Esterman score was calculated. The relationship between difficulty in daily living and Esterman score was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean total score for difficulty in daily living was 34 +/- 7 (range; 13-40). The mean Esterman score was 79 +/- 24 (range; 0-100). The total score for difficulty in daily living correlates positively with the Esterman score (r2 = 0.48, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The present study indicates that the Esterman score is a good predictor of difficulty daily living.     

Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were (a) to explore patients self-reported visual disability resulting from glaucoma by means of a questionnaire developed for this purpose; (b) identify activities strongly associated with a measure of visual field loss, (c) to quantify different psychophysical aspects of visual function; (d) to assess the relationship between objective measures of visual function and patients' perception of their vision-related quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS :Three groups of glaucoma patients (n = 47) with mild (n = 18), moderate (n = 19), and severe visual field loss (n = 10) and a group of normal controls (n = 19) underwent a comprehensive clinical examination, completed a questionnaire and, on a separate visit, performed a number of psychophysical tests of visual function. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire responses (vision-related quality of life, general health and psychosocial variables), visual acuity, visual fields, Esterman binocular disability scores, contrast sensitivity, critical flicker frequency, color vision, dark adaptation, glare disability (brightness acuity), and stereoacuity scores were measured. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 50 questions were noted to have a strong significant relationship with a measure of visual field loss and were included in a new questionnaire scale, the Glaucoma Quality of Life - 15 (GQL-15). The scale validity showed a significant correlation with perimetric mean deviation (MD) values (r = -0.6; P < 0.0001), the reliability of the scale was high (Cronbach alpha = 0.95), and test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was strong (r = 0.87). An overall statistically significant decrease in performance-related quality of life was noted between normal subjects and all groups of glaucoma patients. A significant relationship was found between the scale questionnaire summary performance measure and a number of psychophysical tests: Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity (r = -0.45, P < 0.001), glare disability (r = -0.41, P < 0.001), Esterman binocular visual field test (r = -0.39, P < 0.001), dark adaptation (r = 0.34, P = 0.007), and stereopsis (r = 0.26, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Perceived visual disability relating to certain tasks (particularly involving dark adaptation and disability glare, activities demanding functional peripheral vision such us tripping over and bumping into objects and outdoor mobility tasks) was significantly associated with the severity of binocular visual field loss. As a result, a new glaucoma-specific questionnaire scale with good performance characteristics is presented in this study. The difficulties encountered by patients in everyday life (as measured with the questionnaire) were also mirrored in their performance on a number of psychophysical tests, especially contrast sensitivity, glare disability, Esterman binocular visual field test, and dark adaptation.     

Correlation of the binocular visual field with patient assessment of vision

PURPOSE: To determine which measures of the binocular visual field correlate best with the patient's assessment of vision. METHODS: Esterman binocular visual field testing and four other binocular visual field tests (designated peripheral 20 dB [p20], peripheral 22 dB [p22], central 24 dB [c24] and central 26 dB [c26]) were performed in 101 patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Scores from these five tests, as well as binocular visual field scores calculated from monocular testing (best-location summation and probability summation), were correlated with performance on the National Eye Institute's Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ)-25 and Short-Form (SF)-36 quality of life instruments, as well as with the linear rating scale utility test. RESULTS: The mean percentage of correct responses was 87%, 69%, 59%, 78%, and 71% for the Esterman, p20, p22, c24, and c26 tests, respectively. The distribution of scores was much broader for the p20 and p22 tests than for the Esterman test. The mean decibels for the binocular visual fields calculated from the monocular visual fields were 21.5 +/- 7.7 dB for the best-location algorithm and 25.1 +/- 6.7 dB for the probability-summation algorithm. The binocular visual field score calculated with the best-location algorithm correlated better with the overall, general vision, distance activities, and peripheral vision domains of theVFQ-25 (partial correlation coefficients of 0.48, 0.48, 0.49, and 0.51, respectively) than did the probability-summation algorithm and all five binocular visual field tests. The best-location algorithm also had the strongest correlation with the linear rating scale utility test (partial correlation coefficient, 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of clinic-based patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma, a global score derived from a combination of two monocular fields correlated better with patient assessment of vision than did the Esterman and four novel binocular visual field tests.     

Esterman disability rating in severe glaucoma

Forty-two patients with severe visual loss from glaucoma were assigned an Esterman visual function score according to their performance on a binocular visual field test using an automated perimeter. (The Esterman score has been adopted by the AMA as a new standard for rating visual field disability.) The visual function score was correlated with patient responses to questions about perceived visual disability. Monocular visual field results from both eyes using automated suprathreshold static and manual kinetic perimetry were also compared to the binocular Esterman test results. The binocular Esterman test rapidly provided information concerning visual field disability which correlated well with combined monocular results, and with an objectivity lacking in patient responses to a disability questionnaire.     

Integrated visual fields: a new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability

Background We have developed a method of quantifying the central binocular visual field by merging results from monocular fields (Integrated visual field). This study aims to compare the new measure with the binocular Esterman visual field test in identifying patients with self-reported visual disability.Methods Forty-eight patients with glaucoma each recorded Humphrey 24-2 fields for both eyes and an Esterman on the same day, and each completed a binary forced-choice questionnaire relating to perceived visual disability. Computer software merged sensitivity values from monocular fields to generate an integrated visual field and a related score of the number of defects at the <10 dB and <20 dB level. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the integrated visual field score and the Esterman disability score with individual responses to the questions on perceived difficulty with visual tasks.Results Comparison of areas under ROC curves revealed that a score based on the integrated visual field was generally better (median area: 0.79) than Esterman scores (median area: 0.70) in classifying patients with or without a self-reported perceived difficulty with visual tasks.Conclusions The integrated visual field offers a rapid assessment of a glaucoma patients binocular visual field without extra perimetric testing. As compared to an actual binocular field test (Esterman), the integrated visual field provides a better prediction of a glaucoma patients perceived inability to perform certain visual tasks.     

单眼视野损伤程度对青光眼患者双眼视野的影响

目的：探讨单眼视野丢失严重程度对原发性闭角型青光眼、原发性开角型青光眼和正常眼压性青光眼患者双眼视野缺损的影响。

方法：根据双眼单眼视野缺损的阶段,将120例青光眼患者和30例健康参与者分为正常、早期、中度或重度四个阶段。通过整合视野和Esterman双眼视野评估确定双眼视野。在组内和组间比较单眼和双眼视野参数。

结果：对于一只眼睛处于正常或早期阶段而另一只眼睛处于严重阶段的患者,双眼综合视野平均偏差分别为-2.8±1.1、-5.5±1.9dB,以及Esterman的平均得分分别为99.1%±1.7%和95.6%±4.7%。当双眼发展为中度或重度损伤(中度/中度,中度/重度或重度/重度)时,双眼综合视野平均偏差低于-6dB,中度/中度和中度/严重损伤组Esterman的平均得分分别为94.2%±6.0%、94.3%±4.9%,但当双眼处于重度损伤阶段时,Esterman的平均得分迅速从大于90%下降到68.4%±26.3%。

结论：如果一只眼睛处于正常或早期阶段,双眼视野可以保持相对完整。当双眼进展到中度或重度阶段时,通过双眼综合视野平均偏差测量的双眼视野缺损是显著的,并且仅当双眼进入严重阶段时才检测到显著的Esterman双眼视野缺损。     

Associations between glaucomatous visual field loss and participation in activities of daily living

Purpose: This study investigated the association between visual field loss and participation in daily activities in individuals with glaucoma. Methods: Seventy‐nine patients were recruited from the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. Visual fields were assessed using the Esterman binocular visual field tests and participation in daily activities was assessed using the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were also measured. Results: There was no independent relationship between visual field loss and IVI score (r = ?0.20; P = 0.09), except for the mobility domain (r = 0.25; P = 0.03). Mobility was the most affected domain of the IVI (mean = 1.2). Over a quarter of the patients reported experiencing moderate to severe restriction with mobility activities despite relatively minor binocular field loss. Conclusion: Mobility is the area in which glaucoma patients encounter difficulties even when the visual field and visual acuity are relatively good. Questions related to mobility could be asked to identify those patients who need rehabilitation.     

Visual field assessment and the Austroads driving standard

Purpose: To compare the conventional (Humphrey 24‐2) automated visual field testing with the Goldmann standard visual field test for driving, and to predict how many patients with glaucoma may not meet the Australian driving standard with respect to visual fields. Methods: Four patients (retinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma or vigabatrin treatment) with marked visual field defects as determined by uniocular static computerized perimetry (conventional testing) were re‐evaluated with binocular kinetic Goldmann IV4e target field test (Australian driving standard). A series of 48 consecutive patients seen by the Glaucoma Inheritance Study in Tasmania were assessed with both static computerized perimetry and the Goldmann IV4e target test. Results: The four patients with severe visual field defects (on computerized perimetry) were found to meet the driving standard on the binocular Goldmann IV4e target test. On computerized perimetry, 15 of 48 patients from the Glaucoma Inheritance Study in Tasmania were found to have visual field defects of sufficient severity that they may not meet the driving standard. However, only five of these patients failed the driving standard for visual fields, two of whom were still driving. Conclusions: Patients with severe field defects on conventional uniocular automated perimetry may still meet the Goldmann standard visual field test for driving. Approximately 30% of glaucoma patients would have visual field loss shown on Humphrey 24‐2 test of a severity that requires further testing to determine if they meet the driving standard. Ten per cent of glaucoma patients tested did not meet the driving standard for visual fields.     

Interocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary open angle glaucoma and primary angle-closure glaucoma

AIM: To compare the interocular asymmetry in visual field loss of patients with primary open-angle (POAG) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). METHODS: Subjects entering a prospective, randomised, controlled trial of intraoperative 5-fluorouracil in glaucoma surgery in Singapore were included. Preoperative visual field testing was performed using automated white-on-white perimetry (24-2 test pattern, threshold program, Mk II, Model 750, Zeiss-Humphrey, San Leandro, CA, USA). A minimum of two tests were required with mean deviation within 2 dB on two tests, fixation losses <20%, false positives <33%, and false negatives <33%. The second field was scored using AGIS II criteria and the 'mean asymmetry score' defined as the mean difference between eyes for both AGIS scores and global indices. RESULTS: In 230 subjects assessed (128 POAG, 102 PACG), mean interocular asymmetry of visual field loss was greater for the PACG group. The mean AGIS asymmetry scores for total (PACG=9.21+/-6.87 vs POAG=6.48+/-5.58, P=0.001), superior (PACG=4.31+/-3.39 vs POAG=3.35+/-3.13, P=0.035), and inferior (PACG=4.43+/-3.31 vs POAG=2.64+/-2.77, P<0.0001) areas and mean deviation (MD) asymmetry scores (PACG=6.89+/-13.22 vs POAG=1.66+/-16.97, P=0.012) were all significantly different. Interocular correlation of visual field loss for POAG was significant; total AGIS, r=0.27 (P=0.003), superior field AGIS, r=0.24 (P=0.008), inferior field AGIS, r=0.34 (P=0.0001), and MD, r=0.27 (P=0.003). In PACG, there was no significant correlation between eyes; total AGIS, r=-0.02 (P=0.85), superior field AGIS, r=-0.02 (P=0.82), inferior field AGIS, r=-0.17 (P=0.87), and MD, r=0.015 (P=0.89). CONCLUSION: There was a greater asymmetry of visual field loss between eyes, as measured by AGIS scores and MD, in PACG than that in POAG.     

Assessment of function related to vision (AFREV)

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship of a performance-based measure of visual functioning to clinical and subjective measures in glaucoma patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of glaucoma patients. Participants: Forty-three patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. METHODS: Patients were evaluated using a novel performance-based measure, the Assessment of Function Related to Vision (AFREV), standard clinical tests of visual function, and the National Eye Institute's Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), a self-reported quality of life measure. Correlations of the AFREV scores with visual field scores, monocular and binocular visual acuity, contrast sensitivity scores, and NEI-VFQ scores were calculated. Rasch analysis was used to estimate the visual ability required by each task of AFREV for a particular response (item measures) and to estimate the visual ability of each patient (person measures). Main Outcome Measures: AFREV and NEI-VFQ total scores. RESULTS: The AFREV total scores were highly correlated with contrast sensitivity (r = 0.772), binocular visual acuity (r = -0.768), better-eye visual acuity (r = -0.737), worse-eye visual acuity (r = -0.675), and Estermann visual field efficiency scores (r = 0.606) as well as with NEI-VFQ scores (r = 0.70). The resulting index, constructed from 5 items of the AFREV, is unidimensional, thereby satisfying the primary assumption of the Rasch model. The Rasch person-item map demonstrates that the "putting stick into holes" and "reading small print" tests require the most visual ability. CONCLUSIONS: The AFREV performance-based measure, a new test of a spectrum of activities, correlates well with some standard measures of visual function and certain aspects of self-report assessments. AFREV appears to be a valid measure of performance ability that may provide information not obtainable from standard measures of visual function or subjective surveys.     

Comparison of the monocular Humphrey visual field and the binocular Humphrey esterman visual field test for driver licensing in glaucoma subjects in Sweden

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to compare the monocular Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) with the binocular Humphrey Esterman Visual Field (HEVF) for determining whether subjects suffering from glaucoma fulfill the new medical requirements for possession of a Swedish driver's license. METHODS: HVF SITA Fast 24-2 full threshold (monocularly) and HEVF (binocularly) tests were performed consecutively on the same day on 40 subjects with glaucomatous damage of varying degrees in both eyes. Assessment of results was constituted as either "passing" or "failing" score, according to the new medical requirements put into effect September 1, 2010 by the Swedish Transport Agency. RESULTS: Forty subjects were recruited and participated in the study. Sixteen subjects passed both tests, and sixteen subjects failed both tests. Eight subjects passed the HEFV but failed the HVF. There was a significant difference between HEVF and HVF (chi2, p=0.004). There were no subjects who passed the HVF, but failed the HEVF. CONCLUSIONS: The monocular visual field test (HVF) gave more specific information about the location and depth of the defects, and therefore is the overwhelming method of choice for use in diagnostics. The binocular visual field test (HEVF) seems not be as efficient as the HVF in finding visual field defects in glaucoma patients, and is therefore of doubtful use in evaluating visual capabilities in traffic situations.     

Impact of visual function on computer task accuracy and reaction time in a cohort of patients with age-related macular degeneration

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of visual function parameters on computer task performance in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Interventional case series. METHODS: Eighteen patients with visual impairment due to age-related macular degeneration underwent evaluation of visual acuity using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study protocol, contrast sensitivity using a Pelli-Robson chart, binocular simultaneous visual field using the Esterman program on an automated perimeter, and color vision using Farnsworth D-15. Each subject then completed 125 computer icon identification tasks. Relationships between computer task performance (accuracy and speed) and visual function parameters (visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual field, and color vision) were analyzed. RESULTS: Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in the better eye, weighted average contrast sensitivity, and color vision defects are significantly associated with computer task accuracy. Visual acuity in the better eye, weighted average visual acuity, and color vision defects are significantly associated with performance speed. Visual function parameters and clinical features significantly associated with computer task accuracy in a multiple regression model include weighted average contrast sensitivity (P = 0.001), protan color vision defect (P = 0.002), cataract severity in the better-seeing eye (P = 0.036), and geographic atrophy outside the central macula (P = 0.046). Visual function parameters and clinical features significantly associated with computer task speed in a multiple regression model include color vision defects (deutan, P < 0.001; protan, P < 0.001) and gender (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among this cohort of patients with AMD, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and color vision defects are significant predictors of computer task performance. Visual function parameters of the better eye played a more significant role than parameters of the worse eye, and contrast sensitivity is the most significant predictor of computer task accuracy.     

Simulating binocular visual field status in glaucoma

AIMS—To simulate the central binocular visual field using results from merged left and right monocular Humphrey fields. To assess the agreement between the simulation and the binocular Humphrey Esterman visual field test (EVFT).
METHOD—59 consecutive patients with bilateral glaucoma each recorded Humphrey 24-2 fields for both eyes and binocular EVFT on the same visit. EVFT results were used to identify patients exhibiting at least one defect (<10 dB) within the central 20° of the binocular field. This criterion is relevant to a patient''s legal fitness to drive in the UK. Individual sensitivity values from monocular fields are merged to generate a simulated central binocular field. Results are displayed as a grey scale and as symbols representing defects at the <10 dB level. Agreement between patients failing the criterion using the simulation and the EVFT was evaluated.
RESULTS—Substantial agreement was observed between the methods in classifying patients with at least one defect (<10 dB) within the central binocular field (kappa 0.81; SE 0.09). Patients failing this criterion using the EVFT results were identified by the binocular simulation with high levels of sensitivity (100%) and specificity (86%).
CONCLUSIONS—Excellent agreement exists between the simulated binocular results and EVFT in classifying glaucomatous patients with central binocular defects. A rapid estimate of a patient''s central binocular field and visual functional capacity can be ascertained without extra perimetric examination.

     

变化角膜补偿器偏振光激光扫描仪对青光眼的临床观察

目的　评价使用变化角膜补偿器的偏振光激光扫描仪 (GDx -VCC)对青光眼患者的定量观察。方法　对青光眼患者 91人 165眼根据有无视野异常及程度分为 :青光眼视野正常组 87眼 ,早期青光眼 5 6眼及中晚期青光眼 2 2眼 ,正常人组 3 6人 3 6眼进行GDx -VCC检查。统计各组平均视神经纤维层厚度 (RNFL)、上方及下方神经纤维层厚度、平均视盘周神经纤维层厚度标准差及视神经纤维索引因素 (NFI)。对各组值进行多组比较统计处理。结果　正常人平均视神经纤维层厚度、上方及下方神经纤维层厚度与视野有异常的青光眼各组值方差分析P <0 0 0 1;与视野正常的青光眼组各对应区域的神经纤维层厚度比较P =0 0 0 9、 0 0 0 5及 0 0 64。结论　使用变化角膜补偿器的偏振光激光扫描仪测量视神经纤维层厚度对正常人与青光眼患者有区别能力 ,能更早于视野反映视神经纤维层异常。     

视野缺损计分与OCT测量RNFL厚度的关系

目的:探讨视野缺损计分值与视网膜神经纤维层损害的关系。方法:收集开角型青光眼患者30例30眼,分别进行OCT视网膜神经纤维层厚度及视野检查。根据视野结果进行视野缺损计分并分组。组间分析各象限视网膜神经纤维层厚度值与视野缺损计分,平均缺损(MD)的关系和相关性。结果:根据视野缺损计分将患者分为四组,上侧、下侧,平均视网膜神经纤维层厚度在组间有显著性差异(P=0.010,P<0.01,P<0.01)。四组间随视野缺损程度加重,上侧、下侧,平均视网膜神经纤维层厚度变薄。在重度缺损组视网膜神经纤维层厚度最薄。视野缺损计分与上、下、鼻、颞侧及平均视网膜神经纤维层厚度均明显负相关(r=-0.610,P=0.001;r=-0.779,P<0.01;r=-0.463,P=0.015;r=-0.500,P=0.008;r=-0.782,P<0.01),视野指数MD与上侧,下侧及平均RNFL厚度明显正相关(r=0.557,P=0.003;r=0.431,P=0.025;r=0.532,P=0.004)。结论:视野缺损计分对视野缺损的客观评估,与OCT测得的视网膜神经纤维层厚度的结果负相关,是反应青光眼视神经损伤的可靠的观察指标。     

Driving performance of glaucoma patients correlates with peripheral visual field loss

PURPOSE: To identify clinical vision measures that are associated with the driving performance of glaucoma patients who have visual field loss and visual acuity better than 20/100 and to compare the driving performance of glaucoma patients with the driving performance of a group of age- and sex-equivalent individuals without eye disease. PATIENTS: Forty patients with glaucoma and 17 normally sighted control subjects participated in this study. METHODS: Clinical vision data, consisting of visual acuity, letter contrast sensitivity, and visual fields, were collected. Driving performance was assessed by (1) an interactive driving simulator that measured 7 indices of performance (including number of accidents) and (2) the self-reported accident involvement for the past 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Driving simulator performance and real-world, self-reported accident involvement. RESULTS: The number of accidents as measured on the driving simulator in the glaucoma group was significantly correlated with three Goldmann visual field measures: combined horizontal extent (rho = -0.47, P = 0.01), total horizontal extent (rho = -0.49, P = 0.007), and total peripheral extent (rho = -0.55, P = 0.002). There were no statistically significant correlations between the driving performance of the glaucoma group and the visual acuity or contrast sensitivity measures. When compared with the control group, a significantly greater proportion of the glaucoma group reported having at least one real-world accident within the past 5 years (Fisher exact test, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Visual field reduced to less than 100 degrees of horizontal extent may place patients with peripheral field loss at greater accident risk. A higher incidence of real-world and simulator accidents was found for the group with glaucoma.     

The rate of visual field loss in optic nerve head drusen

PURPOSE: To define the rate of visual field loss in patients with optic nerve head drusen (ONHD). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Goldmann visual field (GVF) testing from initial visit and last follow-up examination were quantified using the modified Esterman grid technique. The rate of visual field loss was calculated by comparing the initial GVF to the last follow-up GVF. A comparative analysis of GVF and age at initial evaluation was performed on all patients with an initial GVF only. SETTING: Tertiary academic care center. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria for the rate analysis: (1) diagnosis of ONHD and (2) at least 36 months of follow-up with serial GVF testing. Exclusion criteria: (1) patients with glaucoma or glaucoma-suspect; (2) history or examination evidence for other ocular disease; and (3) drusen-related macular causes of visual loss. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 292 charts were included in the rate analysis. The rate of visual field loss was 1.58%. There was no statistically significant difference between men and women (P = .74). One hundred eighty patients were included in the initial visual field analysis. There was a significant negative correlation between age and GVF, with older patients having lower GVF scores with a Spearman correlation of -0.42 (P < 0.0001); 73% of these 180 patients had mild, minimal, or no visual field loss. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of visual field loss for ONHD over a 36-month interval of time was 1.6% per year. Patients with minimal or no visual field loss were younger, and patients with moderate or severe visual loss were older.     

Scanning laser polarimetry with enhanced corneal compensation and optical coherence tomography in normal and glaucomatous eyes

PURPOSE: To examine the association between scanning laser polarimetry (SLP), using enhanced (ECC) and variable corneal compensation (VCC) with optical coherence tomography (OCT), and to compare their discriminating ability in the diagnosis of glaucoma. METHODS: Normal and glaucomatous eyes enrolled from four clinical sites underwent complete examination, automated perimetry, SLP-ECC, SLP-VCC, and OCT. Eyes were characterized in two groups based on the typical scan score (TSS): Normal birefringence pattern (NBP) was defined as a TSS of 80 to 100 and abnormal birefringence pattern (ABP) as TSS 相似文献