Gerald McGwin1, Carrie Huisingh, Shelly G Jain, Christopher A Girkin, Cynthia Owsley. 1. *Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health Departments of †Ophthalmology ‡Surgery, School of Medicine §Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL ∥Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between the binocular visual field defects in drivers with glaucoma and the risk of motor vehicle collision (MVC) involvement. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 438 drivers with glaucoma aged 55 years or older using data from 1994 through 2000. Demographic, clinical, and driving characteristics were obtained from chart abstractions and patient survey. Binocular field measures were generated by combining data from the monocular (central 24-degree radius) fields whereby the binocular field measure was defined as the more sensitive point at each monocular field location. Measures included threshold (TH), total deviation (TD), and pattern deviation (PD); severe impairment in these measures was defined as falling into the worst quartile. MVC data were obtained from police records. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Drivers with severely impaired PD measures were twice as likely to have an at-fault MVC compared with those not severely impaired (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.21-3.75); those with severely impaired TH (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.81-2.74) and TD (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.82-2.74) also had an increased rate of at-fault MVCs, although these were not significant. When the binocular central visual field was stratified into 9 regions, drivers with impaired TH, TD, or PD had similarly elevated MVC rates in all regions compared with those not severely impaired, though not all reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of clinical measures of visual field routinely used in the management of glaucoma, drivers with glaucoma with severe PD field defects in the binocular field have a higher rate of at-fault MVC compared with those with less impaired or unimpaired binocular visual fields.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between the binocular visual field defects in drivers with glaucoma and the risk of motor vehicle collision (MVC) involvement. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 438 drivers with glaucoma aged 55 years or older using data from 1994 through 2000. Demographic, clinical, and driving characteristics were obtained from chart abstractions and patient survey. Binocular field measures were generated by combining data from the monocular (central 24-degree radius) fields whereby the binocular field measure was defined as the more sensitive point at each monocular field location. Measures included threshold (TH), total deviation (TD), and pattern deviation (PD); severe impairment in these measures was defined as falling into the worst quartile. MVC data were obtained from police records. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Drivers with severely impaired PD measures were twice as likely to have an at-fault MVC compared with those not severely impaired (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.21-3.75); those with severely impaired TH (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.81-2.74) and TD (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.82-2.74) also had an increased rate of at-fault MVCs, although these were not significant. When the binocular central visual field was stratified into 9 regions, drivers with impaired TH, TD, or PD had similarly elevated MVC rates in all regions compared with those not severely impaired, though not all reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of clinical measures of visual field routinely used in the management of glaucoma, drivers with glaucoma with severe PD field defects in the binocular field have a higher rate of at-fault MVC compared with those with less impaired or unimpaired binocular visual fields.
Authors: A Sommer; J M Tielsch; J Katz; H A Quigley; J D Gottsch; J C Javitt; J F Martone; R M Royall; K A Witt; S Ezrine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander K N Lam; Elaine To; Robert N Weinreb; Marco Yu; Heather Mak; Gilda Lai; Vivian Chiu; Ken Wu; Xiujuan Zhang; Timothy P H Cheng; Philip Yawen Guo; Christopher K S Leung Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Alberto Diniz-Filho; Erwin R Boer; Ahmed Elhosseiny; Zhichao Wu; Masaki Nakanishi; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 3.283