PURPOSE: To evaluate the natural course of visual field loss in patients with Type 2 Usher syndrome and different patterns of visual field loss. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with Type 2 Usher syndrome who had at least three visual field measurements during a period of at least 3 years were studied. Kinetic visual fields measured on a standard calibrated Goldmann perimeter with II4e and V4e targets were analyzed. The visual field areas in both eyes were determined by planimetry with the use of a digitalizing tablet and computer software and expressed in square inches. The data for each visual field area measurement were transformed to a natural log unit. Using a mixed model regression analysis, values for the half-life of field loss (time during which half of the remaining field area is lost) were estimated. Three different patterns of visual field loss were identified, and the half-life time for each pattern of loss was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 58 patients, 11 were classified as having pattern type I, 12 with pattern type II, and 14 with pattern type III. Of 21 patients whose visual field loss was so advanced that they could not be classified, 15 showed only a small residual central field (Group A) and 6 showed a residual central field with a peripheral island (Group B). The average half-life times varied between 3.85 and 7.37 for the II4e test target and 4.59 to 6.42 for the V4e target. There was no statistically significant difference in the half-life times between the various patterns of field loss or for the test targets. CONCLUSION: The average half-life times for visual field loss in patients with Usher syndrome Type 2 were statistically similar among those patients with different patterns of visual field loss. These findings will be useful for counseling patients with Type 2 Usher syndrome as to their prognosis for anticipated visual field loss.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the natural course of visual field loss in patients with Type 2 Usher syndrome and different patterns of visual field loss. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with Type 2 Usher syndrome who had at least three visual field measurements during a period of at least 3 years were studied. Kinetic visual fields measured on a standard calibrated Goldmann perimeter with II4e and V4e targets were analyzed. The visual field areas in both eyes were determined by planimetry with the use of a digitalizing tablet and computer software and expressed in square inches. The data for each visual field area measurement were transformed to a natural log unit. Using a mixed model regression analysis, values for the half-life of field loss (time during which half of the remaining field area is lost) were estimated. Three different patterns of visual field loss were identified, and the half-life time for each pattern of loss was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 58 patients, 11 were classified as having pattern type I, 12 with pattern type II, and 14 with pattern type III. Of 21 patients whose visual field loss was so advanced that they could not be classified, 15 showed only a small residual central field (Group A) and 6 showed a residual central field with a peripheral island (Group B). The average half-life times varied between 3.85 and 7.37 for the II4e test target and 4.59 to 6.42 for the V4e target. There was no statistically significant difference in the half-life times between the various patterns of field loss or for the test targets. CONCLUSION: The average half-life times for visual field loss in patients with Usher syndrome Type 2 were statistically similar among those patients with different patterns of visual field loss. These findings will be useful for counseling patients with Type 2 Usher syndrome as to their prognosis for anticipated visual field loss.
Authors: Wadih M Zein; Benedetto Falsini; Ekaterina T Tsilou; Amy E Turriff; Julie M Schultz; Thomas B Friedman; Carmen C Brewer; Christopher K Zalewski; Kelly A King; Julie A Muskett; Atteeq U Rehman; Robert J Morell; Andrew J Griffith; Paul A Sieving Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Edwin M Stone; Xunda Luo; Elise Héon; Byron L Lam; Richard G Weleber; Jennifer A Halder; Louisa M Affatigato; Jacqueline B Goldberg; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Artur V Cideciyan; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Samuel G Jacobson; Artur V Cideciyan; Dan Gibbs; Alexander Sumaroka; Alejandro J Roman; Tomas S Aleman; Sharon B Schwartz; Melani B Olivares; Robert C Russell; Janet D Steinberg; Margaret A Kenna; William J Kimberling; Heidi L Rehm; David S Williams Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katherine E Talcott; Kavitha Ratnam; Sanna M Sundquist; Anna S Lucero; Brandon J Lujan; Weng Tao; Travis C Porco; Austin Roorda; Jacque L Duncan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alejandro J Roman; Artur V Cideciyan; Sharon B Schwartz; Melani B Olivares; Elise Heon; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 4.799