首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Visual function assessment in simulated real-life situations in patients with age-related macular degeneration compared to normal subjects
Authors:G Barteselli  M L Gomez  A L Doede  J Chhablani  W Gutstein  D-U Bartsch  L Dustin  S P Azen  W R Freeman
Affiliation:1.Department of Ophthalmology, Jacobs Retina Center at Shiley Eye Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA;2.Ophthalmological Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Ca'' Granda Foundation-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy;3.L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India;4.Salus University, Elkins Park, PA, USA;5.Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Abstract:

Purpose

To evaluate visual function variations in eyes with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) compared to normal eyes under different light/contrast conditions using a time-dependent visual acuity testing instrument, the Central Vision Analyzer (CVA).

Methods

Overall, 37 AMD eyes and 35 normal eyes were consecutively tested with the CVA after assessing best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using ETDRS charts. The CVA established visual thresholds for three mesopic environments (M1 (high contrast), M2 (medium contrast), and M3 (low contrast)) and three backlight-glare environments (G1 (high contrast, equivalent to ETDRS), G2 (medium contrast), and G3 (low contrast)) under timed conditions. Vision drop across environments was calculated, and repeatability of visual scores was determined.

Results

BCVA significantly reduced with decreasing contrast in all eyes. M1 scores for BCVA were greater than M2 and M3 (P<0.001); G1 scores were greater than G2 and G3 (P<0.01). BCVA dropped more in AMD eyes than in normal eyes between M1 and M2 (P=0.002) and between M1 and M3 (P=0.003). In AMD eyes, BCVA was better using ETDRS charts compared to G1 (P<0.001). The drop in visual function between ETDRS and G1 was greater in AMD eyes compared to normal eyes (P=0.004). Standard deviations of test–retest ranged from 0.100 to 0.139 logMAR.

Conclusion

The CVA allowed analysis of the visual complaints that AMD patients experience with different lighting/contrast time-dependent conditions. BCVA changed significantly under different lighting/contrast conditions in all eyes, however, AMD eyes were more affected by contrast reduction than normal eyes. In AMD eyes, timed conditions using the CVA led to worse BCVA compared to non-timed ETDRS charts.
Keywords:
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号