S P Donahue1, M Wall, K E Kutzko, R H Kardon. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-8808, USA. sean.donahue@mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantitate the visual field abnormalities associated with amblyopia. METHODS: In a prospective study, 37 amblyopic patients (11 anisometropic, 13 strabismic, 9 combination, 4 deprivation) performed automated perimetry in each eye using the Humphrey 30-2 program. Primary outcome measures were foveal threshold, mean deviation, and average threshold. RESULTS: When the probability plots were examined, 21 visual fields in amblyopic eyes were normal, 8 had central scotomas, and 7 had diffuse depressions. No focal defects other than mild central scotomas were seen. However, the foveal threshold of amblyopic eyes was decreased by an average of 7.2 +/- 8.0 dB (P < .0001) compared with fellow eyes; intereye differences in mean deviation (3.2 +/- 5.4 dB; P < .001) and average threshold (2.9 +/- 5.3 dB; P < .005) were also seen. This decrease in sensitivity for the amblyopic eye occurred for all types of amblyopia. The depression in threshold was greatest at the fovea but was detectable and significant at all eccentricities of the 30-degree field. The average threshold in the amblyopic eye was highly correlated with visual acuity (r = .839; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although automated visual fields in amblyopic eyes typically appear normal, all four types of amblyopia are associated with a generalized depression of light sensitivity, which is proportionately greatest at the fovea and highly correlated with visual acuity loss. In general, amblyopia is not associated with any area of focal loss of threshold light sensitivity. If a focal defect is present in the visual field of the amblyopic eye, organic causes of visual loss should be suspected. The Humphrey visual field analyzer STATPAC program (Allergan-Humphrey, Inc, San Leandro, California) may artifactually transform small and generalized full-field depressions in a manner that makes them appear to be isolated central defects.
PURPOSE: To quantitate the visual field abnormalities associated with amblyopia. METHODS: In a prospective study, 37 amblyopic patients (11 anisometropic, 13 strabismic, 9 combination, 4 deprivation) performed automated perimetry in each eye using the Humphrey 30-2 program. Primary outcome measures were foveal threshold, mean deviation, and average threshold. RESULTS: When the probability plots were examined, 21 visual fields in amblyopic eyes were normal, 8 had central scotomas, and 7 had diffuse depressions. No focal defects other than mild central scotomas were seen. However, the foveal threshold of amblyopic eyes was decreased by an average of 7.2 +/- 8.0 dB (P < .0001) compared with fellow eyes; intereye differences in mean deviation (3.2 +/- 5.4 dB; P < .001) and average threshold (2.9 +/- 5.3 dB; P < .005) were also seen. This decrease in sensitivity for the amblyopic eye occurred for all types of amblyopia. The depression in threshold was greatest at the fovea but was detectable and significant at all eccentricities of the 30-degree field. The average threshold in the amblyopic eye was highly correlated with visual acuity (r = .839; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although automated visual fields in amblyopic eyes typically appear normal, all four types of amblyopia are associated with a generalized depression of light sensitivity, which is proportionately greatest at the fovea and highly correlated with visual acuity loss. In general, amblyopia is not associated with any area of focal loss of threshold light sensitivity. If a focal defect is present in the visual field of the amblyopic eye, organic causes of visual loss should be suspected. The Humphrey visual field analyzer STATPAC program (Allergan-Humphrey, Inc, San Leandro, California) may artifactually transform small and generalized full-field depressions in a manner that makes them appear to be isolated central defects.