OBJECTIVE: Because visual pathway lesions are a common complication of pituitary tumors, visual field examinations in patients with acromegaly were studied. Proportion and outcome of visual field defects in patients with acromegaly were evaluated. DESIGN: Large, retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 307 cases of acromegaly seen from 1951 through 1996 at a single referral center. METHODS: Kinetic visual field testing had been performed with the Goldmann perimeter, and the frequency of visual field defects and their correlation with other clinical manifestations and characteristics of the adenoma were examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeat visual field examinations. RESULTS: Of the 307 patients included in the analysis, a visual field defect that could be attributed to the pituitary adenoma was observed in 62 (20.2%) during follow-up. Visual field defects were bilateral in 38 (61.3%) of these cases. Patients with visual field abnormalities were significantly younger (P = 0.04), had larger tumors (P < 0.001), had more suprasellar extensions (P < 0.001), and had higher levels of growth hormone in their serum (P = 0.04) than patients free of visual field defects. At the end of the follow-up period, visual field examination remained abnormal in 32 (10.4%). Return to a normal visual field examination after treatment was more frequently observed in patients who were less than 40 years of age at the time of diagnosis (P = 0.004). Secondary empty sella syndrome was the main cause of visual field defects after treatment. Abnormal visual field, either at the time of diagnosis or during follow-up, decreased from 27% of patients between 1951 and 1975 to 15.4% of patients between 1976 and 1996, when modern neuroimaging techniques became available. CONCLUSIONS: Endocrinologic and neuroimaging follow-up of patients with acromegaly should be accompanied by ophthalmic assessment. Factors predictive of visual field defects have been identified.
OBJECTIVE: Because visual pathway lesions are a common complication of pituitary tumors, visual field examinations in patients with acromegaly were studied. Proportion and outcome of visual field defects in patients with acromegaly were evaluated. DESIGN: Large, retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 307 cases of acromegaly seen from 1951 through 1996 at a single referral center. METHODS: Kinetic visual field testing had been performed with the Goldmann perimeter, and the frequency of visual field defects and their correlation with other clinical manifestations and characteristics of the adenoma were examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeat visual field examinations. RESULTS: Of the 307 patients included in the analysis, a visual field defect that could be attributed to the pituitary adenoma was observed in 62 (20.2%) during follow-up. Visual field defects were bilateral in 38 (61.3%) of these cases. Patients with visual field abnormalities were significantly younger (P = 0.04), had larger tumors (P < 0.001), had more suprasellar extensions (P < 0.001), and had higher levels of growth hormone in their serum (P = 0.04) than patients free of visual field defects. At the end of the follow-up period, visual field examination remained abnormal in 32 (10.4%). Return to a normal visual field examination after treatment was more frequently observed in patients who were less than 40 years of age at the time of diagnosis (P = 0.004). Secondary empty sella syndrome was the main cause of visual field defects after treatment. Abnormal visual field, either at the time of diagnosis or during follow-up, decreased from 27% of patients between 1951 and 1975 to 15.4% of patients between 1976 and 1996, when modern neuroimaging techniques became available. CONCLUSIONS: Endocrinologic and neuroimaging follow-up of patients with acromegaly should be accompanied by ophthalmic assessment. Factors predictive of visual field defects have been identified.
Authors: Carlos Augusto Ferreira Lobão; Letícia Miquilini; Breno Simões Ribeiro da Silva; Verônica Gabriela Ribeiro da Silva; Eliza Maria da Costa Brito Lacerda; Alexandre Antônio Marques Rosa; Givago da Silva Souza Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.379