PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of reticular pseudodrusen on macular function using microperimetry. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients (18 eyes) with reticular pseudodrusen (Group 1), and without medium/large drusen, underwent microperimetry. Eighteen age-matched and sex-matched subjects (18 eyes) with typical drusen and without pseudodrusen (Group 2) also underwent microperimetry. Macular sensitivity was assessed by microperimetry and compared between the two Groups. RESULTS: Mean age of patients with reticular pseudodrusen and with typical drusen was 77.3 ± 6.8 years and 75.0 ± 9.9 years, respectively (P = 0.4), and 61.1% and 61.1% were women, respectively. Mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.14 ± 0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution and 0.13 ± 0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (P = 0.8) in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Microperimetry revealed a significant difference in overall mean macular sensitivity ("square 7 × 7"; 49 points) between Group 1 and Group 2 (5.9 ± 1.7 dB vs. 8.8 ± 2.4 dB, P < 0.001). Both mean central macular sensitivity ("square 3 × 3"; 9 points) and mean peripheral macular microperimetric sensitivity (overall "square 7 × 7" - central "square 3 × 3"; 40 points) were significantly reduced in Group 1 compared with Group 2 (central macular sensitivity: 6.9 ± 1.7 dB vs. 8.9 ± 2.6 dB in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively; P = 0.01; peripheral macular sensitivity: 5.7 ± 1.8 dB vs. 8.7 ± 2.3 dB in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively; P < 0.001). In Group 1, mean peripheral sensitivity was reduced when compared with mean central sensitivity (5.7 ± 1.8 dB vs. 6.9 ± 1.7 dB, P = 0.01), whereas in Group 2, mean sensitivity was similar in both peripheral and central macula (8.7 ± 2.3 dB vs. 8.9 ± 2.6 dB, P = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Eyes with reticular pseudodrusen present a greater extent of reduced sensitivity than eyes with typical drusen.
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of reticular pseudodrusen on macular function using microperimetry. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients (18 eyes) with reticular pseudodrusen (Group 1), and without medium/large drusen, underwent microperimetry. Eighteen age-matched and sex-matched subjects (18 eyes) with typical drusen and without pseudodrusen (Group 2) also underwent microperimetry. Macular sensitivity was assessed by microperimetry and compared between the two Groups. RESULTS: Mean age of patients with reticular pseudodrusen and with typical drusen was 77.3 ± 6.8 years and 75.0 ± 9.9 years, respectively (P = 0.4), and 61.1% and 61.1% were women, respectively. Mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.14 ± 0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution and 0.13 ± 0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (P = 0.8) in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Microperimetry revealed a significant difference in overall mean macular sensitivity ("square 7 × 7"; 49 points) between Group 1 and Group 2 (5.9 ± 1.7 dB vs. 8.8 ± 2.4 dB, P < 0.001). Both mean central macular sensitivity ("square 3 × 3"; 9 points) and mean peripheral macular microperimetric sensitivity (overall "square 7 × 7" - central "square 3 × 3"; 40 points) were significantly reduced in Group 1 compared with Group 2 (central macular sensitivity: 6.9 ± 1.7 dB vs. 8.9 ± 2.6 dB in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively; P = 0.01; peripheral macular sensitivity: 5.7 ± 1.8 dB vs. 8.7 ± 2.3 dB in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively; P < 0.001). In Group 1, mean peripheral sensitivity was reduced when compared with mean central sensitivity (5.7 ± 1.8 dB vs. 6.9 ± 1.7 dB, P = 0.01), whereas in Group 2, mean sensitivity was similar in both peripheral and central macula (8.7 ± 2.3 dB vs. 8.9 ± 2.6 dB, P = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Eyes with reticular pseudodrusen present a greater extent of reduced sensitivity than eyes with typical drusen.
Authors: David Neely; Anna V Zarubina; Mark E Clark; Carrie E Huisingh; Gregory R Jackson; Yuhua Zhang; Gerald McGwin; Christine A Curcio; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Retina Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Yuhua Zhang; Xiaolin Wang; Pooja Godara; Tianjiao Zhang; Mark E Clark; C Douglas Witherspoon; Richard F Spaide; Cynthia Owsley; Christine A Curcio Journal: Retina Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Maximilian Pfau; Moritz Lindner; Martin Gliem; Julia S Steinberg; Sarah Thiele; Robert P Finger; Monika Fleckenstein; Frank G Holz; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Rachel M Cymerman; Adam H Skolnick; William J Cole; Camellia Nabati; Christine A Curcio; R Theodore Smith Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Giuseppe Querques; Maria Vittoria Cicinelli; Alessandro Rabiolo; Luigi de Vitis; Riccardo Sacconi; Lea Querques; Francesco Bandello Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Karl G Csaky; Praveen J Patel; Yasir J Sepah; David G Birch; Diana V Do; Michael S Ip; Robyn H Guymer; Chi D Luu; Shamika Gune; Hugh Lin; Daniela Ferrara Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Jason Flamendorf; Elvira Agrón; Wai T Wong; Darby Thompson; Henry E Wiley; E Lauren Doss; Shaza Al-Holou; Frederick L Ferris; Emily Y Chew; Catherine Cukras Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: SriniVas R Sadda; Usha Chakravarthy; David G Birch; Giovanni Staurenghi; Erin C Henry; Christopher Brittain Journal: Retina Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.256