PURPOSE: To evaluate the disease extent on ultra-widefield fundus autofluorescence (UWF-FAF) in patients with ABCA4 Stargardt disease (STGD) and correlate these data with functional outcome measures. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Setting: Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan. STUDY POPULATION: Sixty-five patients with clinical diagnosis and proven pathogenic variants in the ABCA4 gene. Observational Procedures: The UWF-FAF images were obtained using Optos (200 degrees) and classified into 3 types. Functional testing included kinetic widefield perimetry, full-field electroretinogram (ffERG), and visual acuity (VA). All results were evaluated with respect to UWF-FAF classification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification of UWF-FAF; area comprising the I4e, III4e, and IV4e isopters; ffERG patterns; and VA. RESULTS: For UWF-FAF, 27 subjects (41.5%) were classified as type I, 17 (26.2%) as type II, and 21 (32.4%) as type III. The area of each isopter correlated inversely with the extent of the disease and all isopters were able to detect differences among UWF-FAF types (IV4e, P = .0013; III4e, P = .0003; I4e, P < .0001 = 3.93e-8). ffERG patterns and VA were also different among the 3 UWF-FAF types (P < .001 = 6.61e-6 and P < .001 = 7.3e-5, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with widespread disease presented with more constriction of peripheral visual fields and had more dysfunction on ffERG and worse VA compared to patients with disease confined to the macula. UWF-FAF images may provide information for estimating peripheral and central visual function in STGD.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the disease extent on ultra-widefield fundus autofluorescence (UWF-FAF) in patients with ABCA4 Stargardt disease (STGD) and correlate these data with functional outcome measures. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Setting: Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan. STUDY POPULATION: Sixty-five patients with clinical diagnosis and proven pathogenic variants in the ABCA4 gene. Observational Procedures: The UWF-FAF images were obtained using Optos (200 degrees) and classified into 3 types. Functional testing included kinetic widefield perimetry, full-field electroretinogram (ffERG), and visual acuity (VA). All results were evaluated with respect to UWF-FAF classification. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification of UWF-FAF; area comprising the I4e, III4e, and IV4e isopters; ffERG patterns; and VA. RESULTS: For UWF-FAF, 27 subjects (41.5%) were classified as type I, 17 (26.2%) as type II, and 21 (32.4%) as type III. The area of each isopter correlated inversely with the extent of the disease and all isopters were able to detect differences among UWF-FAF types (IV4e, P = .0013; III4e, P = .0003; I4e, P < .0001 = 3.93e-8). ffERG patterns and VA were also different among the 3 UWF-FAF types (P < .001 = 6.61e-6 and P < .001 = 7.3e-5, respectively). CONCLUSION:Patients with widespread disease presented with more constriction of peripheral visual fields and had more dysfunction on ffERG and worse VA compared to patients with disease confined to the macula. UWF-FAF images may provide information for estimating peripheral and central visual function in STGD.
Authors: Artur V Cideciyan; Malgorzata Swider; Tomas S Aleman; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Marisa I Roman; Ann H Milam; Jean Bennett; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.799
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: Kaoru Fujinami; Panagiotis I Sergouniotis; Alice E Davidson; Genevieve Wright; Ravinder K Chana; Kazushige Tsunoda; Kazuo Tsubota; Catherine A Egan; Anthony G Robson; Anthony T Moore; Graham E Holder; Michel Michaelides; Andrew R Webster Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Etienne M Schönbach; Yulia Wolfson; Rupert W Strauss; Mohamed A Ibrahim; Xiangrong Kong; Beatriz Muñoz; David G Birch; Artur V Cideciyan; Gesa-Astrid Hahn; Muneeswar Nittala; Janet S Sunness; SriniVas R Sadda; Sheila K West; Hendrik P N Scholl Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Artur V Cideciyan; Tomas S Aleman; Malgorzata Swider; Sharon B Schwartz; Janet D Steinberg; Alexander J Brucker; Albert M Maguire; Jean Bennett; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2004-01-06 Impact factor: 6.150
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: Rachael C Heath Jeffery; Jennifer A Thompson; Johnny Lo; Tina M Lamey; Terri L McLaren; Ian L McAllister; David A Mackey; Ian J Constable; John N De Roach; Fred K Chen Journal: Ophthalmol Sci Date: 2021-03-06
Authors: Maria Vittoria Cicinelli; Alessandro Marchese; Alessandro Bordato; Maria Pia Manitto; Francesco Bandello; Maurizio Battaglia Parodi Journal: Ophthalmol Ther Date: 2020-03-05
Authors: Jane Hu; Gayle J Pauer; Stephanie A Hagstrom; Dean Bok; Meghan J DeBenedictis; Vera L Bonilha; Joe G Hollyfield; Roxana A Radu Journal: Redox Biol Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 11.799