Microperimetry in Optic Neuritis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/OOJ-1-106Keywords:
Microperimetry; Optic neuritis; Visual fields; Perimetry; MicroperimeterAbstract
Aim: To evaluate microperimetry as a tool for visual field assessment in optic neuritis and compare it with standard automated perimetry.
Methods: A case-control study was conducted at a tertiary eye care centre in India. Ten cases
of unilateral optic neuritis and 10 healthy controls underwent a detailed ophthalmic evaluation
and visual field testing at presentation and 1 month and 3 months follow-up. Visual fields were
charted using both the standard automated perimeter (10-2 and 30-2 programs) and microperimeter (central 20 degree program) at each visit.
Results: The visual acuity at presentation of the affected eye, fellow eye and control eyes was
0.27±0.19, 0.93±0.14 and 0.94±0.17 respectively. The affected eye visual acuity improved significantly to 0.89±0.24 (p<0.001) at the 3 months follow-up visit. The mean sensitivity thresholds of 10-2 visual field test at presentation were 14.16±11.51, 30.40±1.98 and 31.04±1.95
respectively of which the affected eye showed a significant improvement over 3 months to
28.90±8.36 (p<0.001). The mean sensitivity thresholds of 30-2 visual field test at presentation were 12.88±10.32, 26.03±2.59 and 27.99±2.31 respectively of which the affected eye and
fellow eye showed a significant improvement over 3 months to 26.02±7.54 (p<0.001) and
27.86±1.77 (p<0.03) respectively. The mean sensitivity thresholds of microperimetry 20 degree
visual fields at presentation were 5.60±7.32, 16.54±1.46 and 17.30±1.64 respectively of which
the affected eye showed a significant improvement over 3 months to 16.41±4.87 (p<0.001). Microperimetry fields did not improve completely at 1 month unlike the 10-2 fields and correlated
strongly with visual recovery. The 30-2 fields were the most sensitive to determine subclinical
affliction of the fellow eyes in optic neuritis.
Conclusion: Microperimetry is a sensitive test to evaluate visual fields in optic neuritis and
corresponds with visual recovery. The larger 30 degree module is still indispensible for visual
field assessment in optic neuritis.
References
Nevalainen J, Krapp E, Paetzold J, et al. Visual field defects in acute optic neuritis--distribution of different types of defect pattern, assessed with threshold-related supraliminal perimetry, ensuring high spatial resolution. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthal-mol. 2008; 246(4): 599-607. doi: 10.1007/s00417-007-0722-2
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Beck RW. Baseline visual field profile of optic neuritis the experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111(2): 231-234. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090020085029
Fang JP, Donahue SP, Lin RH. Global visual field involvement in acute unilateral optic neuritis. Am J Ophthal. 1999; 125(5): 554-565. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00298-6
Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Beck RW. Comparison of central and peripheral visual field properties in the optic neuritis treatment trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999; 128(5): 543-553. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00304-9
Rothová Z, Jech R. Residual findings in retrobulbar neuritis during demyelinization. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 1998; 54(2): 95- 99. Web site. http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9622948. Ac-cessed June 29, 2016
Gerling J, Meyer JH, Kommerell G. Visual field defects in optic neuritis and anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: Distinc-tive features. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1998; 236(3): 188-192. doi: 10.1007/s004170050062
Trobe JD, Glaser JS. Quantitative perimetry in compressive optic neuropathy and optic neuritis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1978; 96(7): 1210-1216. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1978.03910060044008
Beck RW, Kupersmith MJ, Cleary PA, Katz B. Fellow eye abnormalities in acute unilateral optic neuritis: Experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Ophthalmology. 1993; 100(5): 691- 697. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(13)31589-9
Orzalesi N, Miglior S, Lonati C, Rosetti L. Microperimetry of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects. Vision Res. 1998; 38(5): 763-771. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00171-5
Van de Velde FJ, Timberlake GT, Jalkh AE, Schepens CL. Static microperimetry with the laser scanning ophthalmoscope. (In French) Ophtalmologie. 1990; 4(3): 291-294. Web site. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2250964. Accessed June 29, 2016
Jean B, Frohn A, Thiel HJ. Laser scanning in ophthalmolo-gy. Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1990; 87(2): 158-167. Web site. http:// europepmc.org/abstract/med/2192974. Accessed June 29, 2016
Sjaarda RN, Frank DA, Glaser BM, Thompson JT, Mur-phy RP. Resolution of an absolute scotoma and improvement of relative scotomata after successful macular hole surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993; 116(2): 129-139. doi: 10.1016/S0002- 9394(14)71276-0
Schneider U, Kuck H, Inhoffen W, Kreissig I. Fun-dus-controlled microperimetry with the scanning laser ophthal-moscope in macular diseases. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1993; 203(3): 212-218. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1045670
Sjaarda RN, Frank DA, Glaser BM, Thompson JT, Mur-phy RP. Assessment of vision in idiopathic macular holes with macular microperimetry using the scanning laser ophthalmos-cope. Ophthalmology. 1993; 100(10): 1513-1518. doi: 10.1016/ S0161-6420(93)31448-X
Kakehashi A, Ishiko S, Konno S, Akiba J, Yoshida A. Diffe-rential diagnosis of macular breaks by microperimetry with a scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 1995; 99(8): 920-924. Web site. http://europepmc.org/abstract/ med/7676892. Accessed June 29, 2016
Toonen F, Remky A, Janssen V, Wolf S, Reim M. Micrope-rimetry in patients with central serous retinopathy. Ger J Oph-thalmol. 1995; 4(5): 311-314. Web site. http://europepmc.org/ abstract/med/7496344. Accessed June 29, 2016
Schneider U, Kuck H, Inhoffen W, Kreissig I. Fundus oriented microperimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmos-cope in age-induced macular degeneration. Klin Monbl Augen-heilkd. 1996; 209(2-3): 8-13. Web site. http://europepmc.org/ abstract/med/8992088. Accessed June 29, 2016
Schneider U, Inhoffen W, Gelisken F, Kreissig I. Assessment of visual function in choroidal neovascularization with scanning laser microperimetry and simultaneous indocyanine green an-giography. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996; 234(10): 612-617. doi: 10.1007/BF00185293
Tezel TH, Del Priore LV, Flowers BE, et al. Correlation between scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry and anatomic abnormalities in patients with subfoveal neovascu-larization. Ophthalmology. 1996; 103(11): 1829-1836. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30419-3
Tsujikawa M, Ohji M, Fujikado T, Saito Y, Motokura M, Ishimoto I, Tano Y. Differentiating full thickness macular holes from impending macular holes and macular pseudoholes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997; 81(2): 117-122. doi: 10.1136/bjo.81.2.117
Ishiko S, Ogasawara H, Yoshida A, Hanada K. The use of scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry to detect visual impairment caused by macular photocoagulation. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1998; 29(2): 95-98. doi: 10.3928/1542-8877- 19980201-03
Takamine Y, Shiraki K, Moriwaki M, Yasunari T, Miki T. Re-tinal sensitivity measurement over drusen using scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Oph-thalmol. 1998; 236(4): 285-290. doi: 10.1007/s004170050079
Lima VC, Prata TS, De Moraes CGV, et al. A comparison between microperimetry and standard achromatic perimetry of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94(1): 64-67. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2009.159772
Romano MR, Angi M, Romano F. Macular sensitivity change in multiple sclerosis followed with microperimetry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007; 17(3): 441-444. Web site. http://medlib. yu.ac.kr/eur_j_oph/ejo_pdf/2007_17_441-444.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016
Xiao-Peng Cao, Yun Xiao, Xiao-Wei Gao, Xue-Hong Cai, Ying Lei, Peng Cao. Clinical effect of MP-1 microperimetry detection in early diagnosis of acute retrobulbar neuritis; (In Chinese). International Eye Science. 2012.
Acton JH, Greenstein VC. Fundus-driven perimetry (micro-perimetry) compared to conventional static automated perimetry: similarities, differences and clinical applications. Can J Oph-thalmol. 2013; 48(5): 358-363. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.03.021
Trobe JD, Beck RW, Moke PS, Cleary PA. Contrast sensi-tivity and other vision tests in the optic neuritis treatment trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996; 121: 547-553. doi: 10.1016/S0002- 9394(14)75429-7
Beck RW, Cleary PA. Optic neuritis treatment trial: One-year follow-up results. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111(6): 773-775. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060061023
Beck RW, Trobe JD. The optic neuritis treatment trial: Putting the results in perspective. J Neuro-ophthalmol. 1995; 15: 131- 135. Web site. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8574355. Accessed Accessed June 29
Mienberg O, Flammer J, Ludin HP. Subclinical visual field defects in multiple sclerosis: Demonstration and quantification with automated perimetry, and comparison with visually evoked potentials. J Neurol. 1982; 227(3): 125-133. doi: 10.1007/ BF00313566
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in The Ophthalmology (TOOJ) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
