PURPOSE: To study the relationship between cone spacing and density and clinical measures of visual function near the fovea. METHODS: High-resolution images of the photoreceptor mosaic were obtained with adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy from 26 patients with inherited retinal degenerations. Cone spacing measures were made close to or at the foveal center (mean [SD] eccentricity, 0.02 [0.03] degree; maximum eccentricity, 0.13 degree) and were converted to Z-scores, fraction of cones, and percentage-of-cones-below-average compared with normal values for each location (based on 37 age-similar visually normal eyes). Z-scores and percentage of cones below average were compared with best-corrected visual acuity (VA) and foveal sensitivity. RESULTS: Visual acuity was significantly correlated with cone spacing (Spearman rank correlation ρ = -0.60, P = 0.003) and was preserved (≥ 80 letters), despite cone density measures that were 52% below normal. Foveal sensitivity showed significant correlation with cone spacing (ρ = -0.47, P = 0.017) and remained normal (≥ 35 decibels), despite density measures that were approximately 52% to 62% below normal. CONCLUSIONS: Cone density was reduced by up to 62% below normal at or near the fovea in eyes with VA and sensitivity that remained within normal limits. Despite a significant correlation with foveal cone spacing, VA and sensitivity are insensitive indicators of the integrity of the foveal cone mosaic. Direct, objective measures of cone structure may be more sensitive indicators of disease severity than VA or foveal sensitivity in eyes with inherited retinal degenerations.
PURPOSE: To study the relationship between cone spacing and density and clinical measures of visual function near the fovea. METHODS: High-resolution images of the photoreceptor mosaic were obtained with adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy from 26 patients with inherited retinal degenerations. Cone spacing measures were made close to or at the foveal center (mean [SD] eccentricity, 0.02 [0.03] degree; maximum eccentricity, 0.13 degree) and were converted to Z-scores, fraction of cones, and percentage-of-cones-below-average compared with normal values for each location (based on 37 age-similar visually normal eyes). Z-scores and percentage of cones below average were compared with best-corrected visual acuity (VA) and foveal sensitivity. RESULTS: Visual acuity was significantly correlated with cone spacing (Spearman rank correlation ρ = -0.60, P = 0.003) and was preserved (≥ 80 letters), despite cone density measures that were 52% below normal. Foveal sensitivity showed significant correlation with cone spacing (ρ = -0.47, P = 0.017) and remained normal (≥ 35 decibels), despite density measures that were approximately 52% to 62% below normal. CONCLUSIONS: Cone density was reduced by up to 62% below normal at or near the fovea in eyes with VA and sensitivity that remained within normal limits. Despite a significant correlation with foveal cone spacing, VA and sensitivity are insensitive indicators of the integrity of the foveal cone mosaic. Direct, objective measures of cone structure may be more sensitive indicators of disease severity than VA or foveal sensitivity in eyes with inherited retinal degenerations.
Authors: Hongxin Song; Toco Yuen Ping Chui; Zhangyi Zhong; Ann E Elsner; Stephen A Burns Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ava K Bittner; Mohamed A Ibrahim; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Marie Diener-West; Gislin Dagnelie Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.973
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: Jacque L Duncan; Yuhua Zhang; Jarel Gandhi; Chiaki Nakanishi; Mohammad Othman; Kari E H Branham; Anand Swaroop; Austin Roorda Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Alessandro Iannaccone; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Maria Laura Ciccarelli; Salvatore A Tedesco; Claudio Macaluso; William J Kimberling; Grant W Somes Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Shu Feng; Michael J Gale; Jonathan D Fay; Ambar Faridi; Hope E Titus; Anupam K Garg; Keith V Michaels; Laura R Erker; Dawn Peters; Travis B Smith; Mark E Pennesi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kady S Bruce; Wolf M Harmening; Bradley R Langston; William S Tuten; Austin Roorda; Lawrence C Sincich Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Qinyun Wang; William S Tuten; Brandon J Lujan; Jennifer Holland; Paul S Bernstein; Steven D Schwartz; Jacque L Duncan; Austin Roorda Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Robert F Cooper; William S Tuten; Alfredo Dubra; David H Brainard; Jessica I W Morgan Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Kamal R Dhakal; Sarah Walters; Juliette E McGregor; Christina Schwarz; Jennifer M Strazzeri; Ebrahim Aboualizadeh; Brittany Bateman; Krystel R Huxlin; Jennifer J Hunter; David R Williams; William H Merigan Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 3.283
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