Lyne Racette1, Evanne J Casson. 1. University of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. lracette@glaucoma.ucsd.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between visual field loss and driving performance as determined by on-road driving assessments. METHODS: We reviewed the files of 1350 patients enrolled in a rehabilitation program at the Bloorview MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre, Toronto, Canada. We identified 131 patients with visual field loss who had undergone an on-road driving assessment. These patients had a primary diagnosis of visual impairment or a primary diagnosis of cerebral vascular accident (CVA) with a secondary diagnosis of visual impairment. None of these patients had documentation of neglect, substantial motor or cognitive deficits. We report the data obtained from 13 hemianopics, 7 quadrantanopics, 25 patients with monocular vision, 10 patients with moderate peripheral losses (<135 degrees of horizontal visual field measured at the midline), and 76 patients with mild peripheral losses (between 135 degrees and 186 degrees of horizontal visual field). The on-road assessment consisted of driving in the area surrounding the rehabilitation center, and the outcome was based on performance on a number of tasks commonly encountered in daily driving. For the purposes of this study, the assessment outcomes were classified as safe, unknown, or unsafe. RESULTS: Overall, the extent of visual field loss did not have a significant impact on driving performance (chi2 = 4.37, p = 0.358). However, hemianopia tended to have a worse impact on driving performance than quadrantanopia with a marginally significant result (chi2 = 3.33, p = 0.068). Overall, the location of the visual loss was not significantly related to driving fitness (chi2 = 1.05, p = 0.30). However, localized defects in the left hemifield (chi2 = 9.561, p = 0.002) and diffuse visual loss in the right hemifield (chi2 = 10.395, p = 0.001) seemed to be associated with driving impairments. A large proportion of monocular drivers were safe drivers and the location of their deficit had no significant impact. CONCLUSIONS: Although the extent of visual field defects appears to be related to driving performance as determined by an on-road driving assessment, large individual differences were observed. This highlights the need for individualized on-road assessments for patients with visual field defects.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between visual field loss and driving performance as determined by on-road driving assessments. METHODS: We reviewed the files of 1350 patients enrolled in a rehabilitation program at the Bloorview MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre, Toronto, Canada. We identified 131 patients with visual field loss who had undergone an on-road driving assessment. These patients had a primary diagnosis of visual impairment or a primary diagnosis of cerebral vascular accident (CVA) with a secondary diagnosis of visual impairment. None of these patients had documentation of neglect, substantial motor or cognitive deficits. We report the data obtained from 13 hemianopics, 7 quadrantanopics, 25 patients with monocular vision, 10 patients with moderate peripheral losses (<135 degrees of horizontal visual field measured at the midline), and 76 patients with mild peripheral losses (between 135 degrees and 186 degrees of horizontal visual field). The on-road assessment consisted of driving in the area surrounding the rehabilitation center, and the outcome was based on performance on a number of tasks commonly encountered in daily driving. For the purposes of this study, the assessment outcomes were classified as safe, unknown, or unsafe. RESULTS: Overall, the extent of visual field loss did not have a significant impact on driving performance (chi2 = 4.37, p = 0.358). However, hemianopia tended to have a worse impact on driving performance than quadrantanopia with a marginally significant result (chi2 = 3.33, p = 0.068). Overall, the location of the visual loss was not significantly related to driving fitness (chi2 = 1.05, p = 0.30). However, localized defects in the left hemifield (chi2 = 9.561, p = 0.002) and diffuse visual loss in the right hemifield (chi2 = 10.395, p = 0.001) seemed to be associated with driving impairments. A large proportion of monocular drivers were safe drivers and the location of their deficit had no significant impact. CONCLUSIONS: Although the extent of visual field defects appears to be related to driving performance as determined by an on-road driving assessment, large individual differences were observed. This highlights the need for individualized on-road assessments for patients with visual field defects.
Authors: Walter T Parker; Gerald McGwin; Joanne M Wood; Jennifer Elgin; Michael S Vaphiades; Lanning B Kline; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Jennifer Elgin; Gerald McGwin; Joanne M Wood; Michael S Vaphiades; Ronald A Braswell; Dawn K DeCarlo; Lanning B Kline; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Am J Occup Ther Date: 2010 Mar-Apr
Authors: Takaaki Kondo; Walter T Tillman; Terry L Schwartz; John V Linberg; J Vernon Odom Journal: Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.746
Authors: Joanne M Wood; Gerald McGwin; Jennifer Elgin; Michael S Vaphiades; Ronald A Braswell; Dawn K DeCarlo; Lanning B Kline; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Markus Bahnemann; Johanna Hamel; Sophie De Beukelaer; Sven Ohl; Stefanie Kehrer; Heinrich Audebert; Antje Kraft; Stephan A Brandt Journal: J Neurol Date: 2014-11-09 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Joanne M Wood; Gerald McGwin; Jennifer Elgin; Michael S Vaphiades; Ronald A Braswell; Dawn K DeCarlo; Lanning B Kline; G Christine Meek; Karen Searcey; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-10-20 Impact factor: 4.799