Aryeh Bernstein1, Janet S Sunness, Carol A Applegate, Elizabeth O Tegins. 1. *Hoover Low Vision Rehabilitation Services and the Department of Ophthalmology, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland; †Department of Medicine, Technion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel; ‡Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and §North Carolina Retina Associates, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the enlargement of the dense scotoma over time in Stargardt disease and to highlight methodologic issues in tracking enlargement. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with full mapping of the border of the dense scotoma using the MP-1 for at least two visits. RESULTS: 14 eyes of 7 patients met this criterion. Patients had median of 3 visits (range 2-5), with median total follow-up of 4.5 years (range 1.5-8). Mean baseline visual acuity was 20/56 (range 20/25-20/200), mean baseline dense scotoma area was 2.23 mm (range 0.41-5.48), and mean dense scotoma enlargement rate was 1.36 mm/year (range 0.22-2.91). The younger patients tended to have more rapid loss of visual acuity, which tended to plateau when the visual acuity was 20/100 or worse. The patients who developed Stargardt before age 20 years, and the single patient who developed Stargardt disease after age 40 years, had more rapid enlargement rates, with preservation of central vision in the oldest patient. The ability to precisely define the dense scotoma area was dependent on the density location of the points tested; this led to significant variability in the assessment of the scotoma enlargement rate in three of the seven patients. The dense scotoma was not described adequately by the extent of the homogeneous dark area on fundus autofluorescence imaging. CONCLUSION: Microperimetry is necessary for mapping the scotoma in patients with Stargardt disease, because current imaging is not adequate. Standardized grid testing, plus a standardized procedure for refining the border of the dense scotoma, should allow more precise testing and longitudinal assessment of enlargement rates.
PURPOSE: To describe the enlargement of the dense scotoma over time in Stargardt disease and to highlight methodologic issues in tracking enlargement. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with full mapping of the border of the dense scotoma using the MP-1 for at least two visits. RESULTS: 14 eyes of 7 patients met this criterion. Patients had median of 3 visits (range 2-5), with median total follow-up of 4.5 years (range 1.5-8). Mean baseline visual acuity was 20/56 (range 20/25-20/200), mean baseline dense scotoma area was 2.23 mm (range 0.41-5.48), and mean dense scotoma enlargement rate was 1.36 mm/year (range 0.22-2.91). The younger patients tended to have more rapid loss of visual acuity, which tended to plateau when the visual acuity was 20/100 or worse. The patients who developed Stargardt before age 20 years, and the single patient who developed Stargardt disease after age 40 years, had more rapid enlargement rates, with preservation of central vision in the oldest patient. The ability to precisely define the dense scotoma area was dependent on the density location of the points tested; this led to significant variability in the assessment of the scotoma enlargement rate in three of the seven patients. The dense scotoma was not described adequately by the extent of the homogeneous dark area on fundus autofluorescence imaging. CONCLUSION: Microperimetry is necessary for mapping the scotoma in patients with Stargardt disease, because current imaging is not adequate. Standardized grid testing, plus a standardized procedure for refining the border of the dense scotoma, should allow more precise testing and longitudinal assessment of enlargement rates.
Authors: Artur V Cideciyan; Malgorzata Swider; Tomas S Aleman; Willam J Feuer; Sharon B Schwartz; Robert C Russell; Janet D Steinberg; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Tomas R Burke; David W Rhee; R Theodore Smith; Stephen H Tsang; Rando Allikmets; Stanley Chang; Margot A Lazow; Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kaoru Fujinami; Jana Zernant; Ravinder K Chana; Genevieve A Wright; Kazushige Tsunoda; Yoko Ozawa; Kazuo Tsubota; Anthony G Robson; Graham E Holder; Rando Allikmets; Michel Michaelides; Anthony T Moore Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Pablo Altschwager; Lucia Ambrosio; Emily A Swanson; Anne Moskowitz; Anne B Fulton Journal: Semin Pediatr Neurol Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: Maria Fernanda Abalem; Benjamin Otte; Chris Andrews; Katherine A Joltikov; Kari Branham; Abigail T Fahim; Dana Schlegel; Cynthia X Qian; John R Heckenlively; Thiran Jayasundera Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-10-14 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Philipp L Müller; Maximilian Pfau; Matthias M Mauschitz; Philipp T Möller; Johannes Birtel; Petrus Chang; Martin Gliem; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Monika Fleckenstein; Frank G Holz; Philipp Herrmann Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Rodolfo Mastropasqua; Alfonso Senatore; Luca Di Antonio; Marta Di Nicola; Michele Marchioni; Fabiana Perna; Filippo Amore; Enrico Borrelli; Chiara De Nicola; Paolo Carpineto; Lisa Toto Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: S Scott Whitmore; Christopher R Fortenbach; Justine L Cheng; Adam P DeLuca; D Brice Critser; Elizabeth L Geary; Jeremy M Hoffmann; Edwin M Stone; Ian C Han Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Janet S Sunness; Abraham Ifrah; Robert Wolf; Carol A Applegate; Janet R Sparrow Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 4.799