Sonne Lemke1, Glenn C Cockerham2, Catherine Glynn-Milley3, Richard Lin4, Kimberly P Cockerham5. 1. Program Evaluation & Resource Center, Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. 2. Ophthalmology, Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California; Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: glenn.cockerham@va.gov. 3. Ophthalmology, Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. 4. Ophthalmology, Scripps Clinic Medical Group, La Jolla, California. 5. Ophthalmology, Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California; Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility and results of automated perimetry in veterans with combat blast neurotrauma. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one patients in a Veterans Affairs Polytrauma Center diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI) from combat blast exposure. METHODS: Study participants underwent automated perimetry at baseline (median interval, 2 months after injury) (Humphrey Field Analyzer, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm 30-2 Standard or Fast), and 36 of them were followed up (median interval, 10 months after baseline). Presence of significant mean deviation and pattern standard deviation was determined for testing with reliability indices ≤20% for fixation loss, 15% for false-positives, and 33% for false-negatives. Test-retest stability of global visual field indices was assessed for tests with these cutoffs or with elevated fixation loss. Associations between global visual field defects and predictors were examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Global visual field indices (mean deviation and pattern standard deviation). RESULTS: Among 61 study participants (109 study eyes) with baseline testing, a field that met reliability cutoffs was obtained for 48 participants (79%) and 78 eyes (72%). Fixation loss was found in 29% of eyes in initial testing. Nine study participants (15%) demonstrated hemianopia or quadrantanopia, and an additional 36% had an abnormal global visual field index. Global indices were relatively stable at follow-up testing for tests meeting fixation-loss cutoffs and tests that did not. Visual scotomas due to post-chiasmal lesions were associated with moderate to severe TBI or penetrating head injury, but other visual field deficits were prevalent across the range of mild to severe TBI. Ocular injury to the retina or choroid, poorer visual acuity, and pupillary defect were associated with visual field defects. Participants with depressed visual field sensitivity reported lower visual quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable automated perimetry can be accomplished in most patients with TBI from combat blast exposure and reveals high rates of visual field deficits, indicating that blast forces may significantly affect the eye and visual pathways. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility and results of automated perimetry in veterans with combat blast neurotrauma. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one patients in a Veterans Affairs Polytrauma Center diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI) from combat blast exposure. METHODS: Study participants underwent automated perimetry at baseline (median interval, 2 months after injury) (Humphrey Field Analyzer, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm 30-2 Standard or Fast), and 36 of them were followed up (median interval, 10 months after baseline). Presence of significant mean deviation and pattern standard deviation was determined for testing with reliability indices ≤20% for fixation loss, 15% for false-positives, and 33% for false-negatives. Test-retest stability of global visual field indices was assessed for tests with these cutoffs or with elevated fixation loss. Associations between global visual field defects and predictors were examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Global visual field indices (mean deviation and pattern standard deviation). RESULTS: Among 61 study participants (109 study eyes) with baseline testing, a field that met reliability cutoffs was obtained for 48 participants (79%) and 78 eyes (72%). Fixation loss was found in 29% of eyes in initial testing. Nine study participants (15%) demonstrated hemianopia or quadrantanopia, and an additional 36% had an abnormal global visual field index. Global indices were relatively stable at follow-up testing for tests meeting fixation-loss cutoffs and tests that did not. Visual scotomas due to post-chiasmal lesions were associated with moderate to severe TBI or penetrating head injury, but other visual field deficits were prevalent across the range of mild to severe TBI. Ocular injury to the retina or choroid, poorer visual acuity, and pupillary defect were associated with visual field defects. Participants with depressed visual field sensitivity reported lower visual quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable automated perimetry can be accomplished in most patients with TBI from combat blast exposure and reveals high rates of visual field deficits, indicating that blast forces may significantly affect the eye and visual pathways. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Yusuf Mehkri; Chadwin Hanna; Sai Sriram; Ramya Reddy; Jairo Hernandez; Jeff A Valisno; Brandon Lucke-Wold Journal: J Neurol Res Rev Rep Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Rachael S Allen; Cara T Motz; Andrew Feola; Kyle C Chesler; Raza Haider; Sriganesh Ramachandra Rao; Lara A Skelton; Steven J Fliesler; Machelle T Pardue Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Matthew M Harper; Addison W Woll; Lucy P Evans; Michael Delcau; Abhigna Akurathi; Adam Hedberg-Buenz; Dana A Soukup; Nickolas Boehme; Marco M Hefti; Laura M Dutca; Michael G Anderson; Alexander G Bassuk Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Rachael S Allen; Cara T Motz; Anayesha Singh; Andrew Feola; Lauren Hutson; Amber Douglass; Sriganesh Ramachandra Rao; Lara A Skelton; Lidia Cardelle; Katie L Bales; Kyle Chesler; Kaavya Gudapati; C Ross Ethier; Matthew M Harper; Steven J Fliesler; Machelle T Pardue Journal: Vision Res Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Matthew M Harper; Danielle Rudd; Kacie J Meyer; Anumantha G Kanthasamy; Vellareddy Anantharam; Andrew A Pieper; Edwin Vázquez-Rosa; Min-Kyoo Shin; Kalyani Chaubey; Yeojung Koh; Lucy P Evans; Alexander G Bassuk; Michael G Anderson; Laura Dutca; Indira T Kudva; Manohar John Journal: Heliyon Date: 2020-02-17
Authors: Peethambaran Arun; Franco Rossetti; James C DeMar; Ying Wang; Andrew B Batuure; Donna M Wilder; Irene D Gist; Andrew J Morris; Roger A Sabbadini; Joseph B Long Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 4.003