G Barteselli1, M L Gomez2, A L Doede2, J Chhablani3, W Gutstein4, D-U Bartsch2, L Dustin5, S P Azen5, W R Freeman2. 1. 1] Department of Ophthalmology, Jacobs Retina Center at Shiley Eye Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA [2] Ophthalmological Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Ca' Granda Foundation-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Jacobs Retina Center at Shiley Eye Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India. 4. Salus University, Elkins Park, PA, USA. 5. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual function variations in eyes with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) compared to normal eyes under different light/contrast conditions using a time-dependent visual acuity testing instrument, the Central Vision Analyzer (CVA). METHODS: Overall, 37 AMD eyes and 35 normal eyes were consecutively tested with the CVA after assessing best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using ETDRS charts. The CVA established visual thresholds for three mesopic environments (M1 (high contrast), M2 (medium contrast), and M3 (low contrast)) and three backlight-glare environments (G1 (high contrast, equivalent to ETDRS), G2 (medium contrast), and G3 (low contrast)) under timed conditions. Vision drop across environments was calculated, and repeatability of visual scores was determined. RESULTS: BCVA significantly reduced with decreasing contrast in all eyes. M1 scores for BCVA were greater than M2 and M3 (P<0.001); G1 scores were greater than G2 and G3 (P<0.01). BCVA dropped more in AMD eyes than in normal eyes between M1 and M2 (P=0.002) and between M1 and M3 (P=0.003). In AMD eyes, BCVA was better using ETDRS charts compared to G1 (P<0.001). The drop in visual function between ETDRS and G1 was greater in AMD eyes compared to normal eyes (P=0.004). Standard deviations of test-retest ranged from 0.100 to 0.139 logMAR. CONCLUSION: The CVA allowed analysis of the visual complaints that AMD patients experience with different lighting/contrast time-dependent conditions. BCVA changed significantly under different lighting/contrast conditions in all eyes, however, AMD eyes were more affected by contrast reduction than normal eyes. In AMD eyes, timed conditions using the CVA led to worse BCVA compared to non-timed ETDRS charts.
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual function variations in eyes with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) compared to normal eyes under different light/contrast conditions using a time-dependent visual acuity testing instrument, the Central Vision Analyzer (CVA). METHODS: Overall, 37 AMD eyes and 35 normal eyes were consecutively tested with the CVA after assessing best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using ETDRS charts. The CVA established visual thresholds for three mesopic environments (M1 (high contrast), M2 (medium contrast), and M3 (low contrast)) and three backlight-glare environments (G1 (high contrast, equivalent to ETDRS), G2 (medium contrast), and G3 (low contrast)) under timed conditions. Vision drop across environments was calculated, and repeatability of visual scores was determined. RESULTS:BCVA significantly reduced with decreasing contrast in all eyes. M1 scores for BCVA were greater than M2 and M3 (P<0.001); G1 scores were greater than G2 and G3 (P<0.01). BCVA dropped more in AMD eyes than in normal eyes between M1 and M2 (P=0.002) and between M1 and M3 (P=0.003). In AMD eyes, BCVA was better using ETDRS charts compared to G1 (P<0.001). The drop in visual function between ETDRS and G1 was greater in AMD eyes compared to normal eyes (P=0.004). Standard deviations of test-retest ranged from 0.100 to 0.139 logMAR. CONCLUSION: The CVA allowed analysis of the visual complaints that AMDpatients experience with different lighting/contrast time-dependent conditions. BCVA changed significantly under different lighting/contrast conditions in all eyes, however, AMD eyes were more affected by contrast reduction than normal eyes. In AMD eyes, timed conditions using the CVA led to worse BCVA compared to non-timed ETDRS charts.
Authors: Caren Bellmann; Kristina Unnebrink; Gary S Rubin; Daniel Miller; Frank G Holz Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2003-09-06 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Adam J Paulsen; Carla R Schubert; Lauren J Johnson; Yanjun Chen; Dayna S Dalton; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Alex Pinto; Karen J Cruickshanks Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Julia S Benoit; Ayeswarya Ravikumar; Jason D Marsack; Heather A Anderson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Jo Lane; Emilie M F Rohan; Faran Sabeti; Rohan W Essex; Ted Maddess; Amy Dawel; Rachel A Robbins; Nick Barnes; Xuming He; Elinor McKone Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Susanne G Pondorfer; Manuel Heinemann; Maximilian W M Wintergerst; Maximilian Pfau; Annika L Strömer; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240