Rebecca Zeng1,2, Filippos Vingopoulos1,2, Mengyu Wang3, Augustine Bannerman1,2, Hannah E Wescott1,2, Grace Baldwin1,2, Raviv Katz1,2, Thomas Koch1,2, Tobias Elze3, Leo A Kim2,3, Demetrios G Vavvas2, Deeba Husain2, John B Miller4,5. 1. Harvard Retinal Imaging Lab, Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles Street, MA, Boston, USA. 2. Retina Service, Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Schepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Harvard Retinal Imaging Lab, Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles Street, MA, Boston, USA. john_miller@meei.harvard.edu. 5. Retina Service, Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. john_miller@meei.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate structure-function associations between retinal thickness, visual acuity (VA), and contrast sensitivity (CS), using the quantitative contrast sensitivity function (qCSF) method in patients with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM). METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional observational study. Patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic ERM were included. Patients underwent complete ophthalmic examination, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography imaging (SD-OCT) (SPECTRALIS® Heidelberg), and CS testing using the qCSF method. Outcomes included area under the log CSF (AULCSF), contrast acuity (CA), and CS thresholds at 1, 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd). RESULTS: A total of 102 eyes of 79 patients were included. Comparing standardized regression coefficients, retinal thickness in most ETDRS sectors was associated with larger reductions in AULCSF, CA, and CS thresholds at 3 and 6 cpd than those in logMAR VA. These differences in effect on VA and CS metrics were more pronounced in the central subfield and inner ETDRS sectors. Among the retinal layers, increased INL thickness had the most detrimental effect on visual function, being significantly associated with reductions in logMAR VA, AULCSF, CA, and CS thresholds at 3 and 6 cpd (all p < .01), as well as at 1.5 and 12 cpd (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Retinal thickness seems to be associated with larger reductions in contrast sensitivity than VA in patients with ERM. Measured with the qCSF method, contrast sensitivity may serve as a valuable adjunct visual function metric for patients with ERM.
PURPOSE: To investigate structure-function associations between retinal thickness, visual acuity (VA), and contrast sensitivity (CS), using the quantitative contrast sensitivity function (qCSF) method in patients with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM). METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional observational study. Patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic ERM were included. Patients underwent complete ophthalmic examination, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography imaging (SD-OCT) (SPECTRALIS® Heidelberg), and CS testing using the qCSF method. Outcomes included area under the log CSF (AULCSF), contrast acuity (CA), and CS thresholds at 1, 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd). RESULTS: A total of 102 eyes of 79 patients were included. Comparing standardized regression coefficients, retinal thickness in most ETDRS sectors was associated with larger reductions in AULCSF, CA, and CS thresholds at 3 and 6 cpd than those in logMAR VA. These differences in effect on VA and CS metrics were more pronounced in the central subfield and inner ETDRS sectors. Among the retinal layers, increased INL thickness had the most detrimental effect on visual function, being significantly associated with reductions in logMAR VA, AULCSF, CA, and CS thresholds at 3 and 6 cpd (all p < .01), as well as at 1.5 and 12 cpd (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Retinal thickness seems to be associated with larger reductions in contrast sensitivity than VA in patients with ERM. Measured with the qCSF method, contrast sensitivity may serve as a valuable adjunct visual function metric for patients with ERM.
Authors: William C Ou; Luis Andres Lesmes; Abigail H Christie; Renee A Denlar; Karl G Csaky Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Rebecca F Silverman; Megan Kasetty; Filippos Vingopoulos; Raviv Katz; June Cho; Luis Andres Lesmes; David N Zacks; Leo A Kim; John B Miller Journal: Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 1.300
Authors: Andrea Govetto; Robert A Lalane; David Sarraf; Marta S Figueroa; Jean Pierre Hubschman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Merina Thomas; Rebecca F Silverman; Filippos Vingopoulos; Megan Kasetty; Gina Yu; Esther L Kim; Amro A Omari; Katherine A Joltikov; Eun Y Choi; Leo A Kim; David N Zacks; John B Miller Journal: J Vitreoretin Dis Date: 2020-11-05
Authors: Jay Wang; Ying Cui; Filippos Vingopoulos; Megan Kasetty; Rebecca F Silverman; Raviv Katz; Leo Kim; John B Miller Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.638