Literature DB >> 2680781

Investigation of visual field defects in strabismic and anisometropic amblyopes with the Octopus program G1.

W Philipp1, W Mayer.   

Abstract

Using the Octopus G1 program, we investigated the visual fields of amblyopic and healthy contralateral eyes in 21 patients with strabismic amblyopia and 14 patients with anisometropic amblyopia. All subjects had a visual acuity of 0.7-0.06. A central scotoma was detected in 85.7% of the patients with strabismic amblyopia and in 79% of those with anisometropic amblyopia. The mean maximal depth of central scotomas in subjects with strabismic amblyopia was 6.81 +/- 4.74 dB (mean +/- SD); in those with anisometropic amblyopia, it was 6.64 +/- 4.34 dB. This difference was statistically not significant. However, in patients with anisometropic amblyopia, the visual field indices MD (mean defect) and CLV (corrected loss variation) were significantly higher than in those with strabismic amblyopia (P less than 0.05 vs P less than 0.05); this was predominantly due to additional flat defects that occurred paracentrally and peripherally in subjects with anisometropic amblyopia. In both groups of patients, we found a significant negative correlation between visual acuity, on the one hand, and the maximal depth of the scotomas and the visual field indices (MD and CLV), on the other.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2680781     DOI: 10.1007/bf02172897

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  16 in total

1.  [Monocular and binocular static perimetry for the study of inhibitory processes in strabismus].

Authors:  G MACKENSEN
Journal:  Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1959

2.  Spatial summation in amblyopia.

Authors:  J T Flynn
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1967-10

3.  The concept of visual field indices.

Authors:  J Flammer
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Differences in vernier discrimination for grating between strabismic and anisometropic amblyopes.

Authors:  D M Levi; S Klein
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Binocular interaction in the peripheral visual field of humans with strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia.

Authors:  R Sireteanu; M Fronius; W Singer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Naso-temporal asymmetries in human amblyopia consequence of long-term interocular suppression.

Authors:  R Sireteanu; M Fronius
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Differences in the neural basis of human amblyopias: the effect of mean luminance.

Authors:  R F Hess; F W Campbell; R Zimmern
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Static perimetry in the study of amblyopic scotomata.

Authors:  D P Aggarwal; G Verma
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1980-09       Impact factor: 4.638

9.  Quantification of glaucomatous visual field defects with automated perimetry.

Authors:  J Flammer; S M Drance; L Augustiny; A Funkhouser
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 4.799

10.  Differences in the neural basis of human amblyopia: the distribution of the anomaly across the visual field.

Authors:  R F Hess; J S Pointer
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  3 in total

1.  Multifocal visual evoked potential and automated perimetry abnormalities in strabismic amblyopes.

Authors:  Vivienne C Greenstein; Howard M Eggers; Donald C Hood
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2007-07-24       Impact factor: 1.220

2.  A limited role for suppression in the central field of individuals with strabismic amblyopia.

Authors:  Brendan T Barrett; Gurvinder K Panesar; Andrew J Scally; Ian E Pacey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Binocular summation and other forms of non-dominant eye contribution in individuals with strabismic amblyopia during habitual viewing.

Authors:  Brendan T Barrett; Gurvinder K Panesar; Andrew J Scally; Ian E Pacey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.