PURPOSE: Presently, no instrument or method exists that is generally accepted for routine clinical assessment of (functional) retinal straylight. Yet retinal straylight is the cause of major patient complaints, such as hindrance from glare and loss of contrast. It results from disturbances in the optical media that increase light-scattering over angles of 1 degrees to 90 degrees . Its assessment would help to decide whether to perform surgery for (early) cataract and would help in the evaluation of corneal or vitreal turbidity. METHODS: The psychophysical technique of the "direct compensation" method was adapted to make it suitable for routine clinical assessment. In the new approach, called "compensation comparison, " the central test field is subdivided into two half fields: one with and one without counterphase compensation light. The subject's task is a forced-choice comparison between the two half fields, to decide which half flickers more strongly. A theoretical form for the respective psychometric function was defined and experimentally verified in a laboratory experiment involving seven subjects, with and without artificially increased light scattering. The method was applied in a separate multicenter study. Its reliability was additionally tested with a commercial implement (C-Quant; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar-Dutenhofen, Germany). RESULTS: A repeated-measures SD of 0.07 log units was achieved, to be compared with differences in the young normal population of 0.4 log units and an increase with healthy aging by 0.5 log units at 80 years and by 1.0 or more log units with (early) cataract or corneal disturbances. Reliability was further found to be high when using the commercial version of the CONCLUSIONS: The compensation comparison method for measuring retinal straylight is suited for clinical use to diagnose patients with complaints caused by large angle light scattering in the eye such as early cataract.
PURPOSE: Presently, no instrument or method exists that is generally accepted for routine clinical assessment of (functional) retinal straylight. Yet retinal straylight is the cause of major patient complaints, such as hindrance from glare and loss of contrast. It results from disturbances in the optical media that increase light-scattering over angles of 1 degrees to 90 degrees . Its assessment would help to decide whether to perform surgery for (early) cataract and would help in the evaluation of corneal or vitreal turbidity. METHODS: The psychophysical technique of the "direct compensation" method was adapted to make it suitable for routine clinical assessment. In the new approach, called "compensation comparison, " the central test field is subdivided into two half fields: one with and one without counterphase compensation light. The subject's task is a forced-choice comparison between the two half fields, to decide which half flickers more strongly. A theoretical form for the respective psychometric function was defined and experimentally verified in a laboratory experiment involving seven subjects, with and without artificially increased light scattering. The method was applied in a separate multicenter study. Its reliability was additionally tested with a commercial implement (C-Quant; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar-Dutenhofen, Germany). RESULTS: A repeated-measures SD of 0.07 log units was achieved, to be compared with differences in the young normal population of 0.4 log units and an increase with healthy aging by 0.5 log units at 80 years and by 1.0 or more log units with (early) cataract or corneal disturbances. Reliability was further found to be high when using the commercial version of the CONCLUSIONS: The compensation comparison method for measuring retinal straylight is suited for clinical use to diagnose patients with complaints caused by large angle light scattering in the eye such as early cataract.
Authors: Grzegorz Łabuz; Fernando Vargas-Martín; Thomas J T P van den Berg; Norberto López-Gil Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Grzegorz Łabuz; Eleni Papadatou; Fernando Vargas-Martín; Norberto López-Gil; Nicolaas J Reus; Thomas J T P van den Berg Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Ivo Guber; Lucas M Bachmann; Josef Guber; Frank Bochmann; Alex P Lange; Michael A Thiel Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Pau Santos; Juan A Martínez-Roda; Juan C Ondategui; Fernando Díaz-Doutón; Jorge A Ortiz Cazal; Meritxell Vilaseca Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 3.732