OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of visual acuity and visual field impairment in patients with types 1 and 2 Usher syndrome. METHODS: The records of 53 patients with type 1 and 120 patients with type 2 Usher syndrome were reviewed for visual acuity and visual field area at their most recent visit. Visual field areas were determined by planimetry of the II4e and V4e isopters obtained with a Goldmann perimeter. Both ordinary and logistic regression models were used to evaluate differences in visual acuity and visual field impairment between patients with type 1 and type 2 Usher syndrome. RESULTS: The difference in visual acuity of the better eye between patients with type 1 and type 2 varied by patient age (P=.01, based on a multiple regression model). The maximum difference in visual acuity between the 2 groups occurred during the third and fourth decades of life (with the type 1 patients being more impaired), while more similar acuities were seen in both younger and older patients. Fifty-one percent (n=27) of the type 1 patients had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye compared with 72% (n=87) of the type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 3.9). Visual field area to both the II4e (P=.001) and V4e (P<.001) targets was more impaired in the better eye of type 1 patients than type 2 patients. A concentric central visual field greater than 20 degrees in at least 1 eye was present in 20 (59%) of the available 34 visual fields of type 1 patients compared with 70 (67%) of the available 104 visual fields of type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 2.9) with the V4e target and in 6 (21%) of the available 29 visual fields of type 1 patients compared with 36 (38%) of the available 94 visual fields of type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 4.9) with the II4e target. The fraction of patients who had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better and a concentric central visual field greater than 20 degrees to the II4e target in at least 1 eye was 17% (n=5) in the type 1 patients and 35% (n=33) in the type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 3.9). CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity and visual field area were more impaired in patients with type 1 than type 2 Usher syndrome. Of note, 27 of 53 type 1 (51%) and 87 of 120 type 2 (72%) patients had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye. These data are useful for overall counseling of patients with Usher syndrome.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of visual acuity and visual field impairment in patients with types 1 and 2 Usher syndrome. METHODS: The records of 53 patients with type 1 and 120 patients with type 2 Usher syndrome were reviewed for visual acuity and visual field area at their most recent visit. Visual field areas were determined by planimetry of the II4e and V4e isopters obtained with a Goldmann perimeter. Both ordinary and logistic regression models were used to evaluate differences in visual acuity and visual field impairment between patients with type 1 and type 2 Usher syndrome. RESULTS: The difference in visual acuity of the better eye between patients with type 1 and type 2 varied by patient age (P=.01, based on a multiple regression model). The maximum difference in visual acuity between the 2 groups occurred during the third and fourth decades of life (with the type 1 patients being more impaired), while more similar acuities were seen in both younger and older patients. Fifty-one percent (n=27) of the type 1 patients had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye compared with 72% (n=87) of the type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 3.9). Visual field area to both the II4e (P=.001) and V4e (P<.001) targets was more impaired in the better eye of type 1 patients than type 2 patients. A concentric central visual field greater than 20 degrees in at least 1 eye was present in 20 (59%) of the available 34 visual fields of type 1 patients compared with 70 (67%) of the available 104 visual fields of type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 2.9) with the V4e target and in 6 (21%) of the available 29 visual fields of type 1 patients compared with 36 (38%) of the available 94 visual fields of type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 4.9) with the II4e target. The fraction of patients who had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better and a concentric central visual field greater than 20 degrees to the II4e target in at least 1 eye was 17% (n=5) in the type 1 patients and 35% (n=33) in the type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 3.9). CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity and visual field area were more impaired in patients with type 1 than type 2 Usher syndrome. Of note, 27 of 53 type 1 (51%) and 87 of 120 type 2 (72%) patients had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye. These data are useful for overall counseling of patients with Usher syndrome.
Authors: Samuel G Jacobson; Artur V Cideciyan; Dan Gibbs; Alexander Sumaroka; Alejandro J Roman; Tomas S Aleman; Sharon B Schwartz; Melani B Olivares; Robert C Russell; Janet D Steinberg; Margaret A Kenna; William J Kimberling; Heidi L Rehm; David S Williams Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Lama Jaffal; Hanane Akhdar; Hawraa Joumaa; Mariam Ibrahim; Zahraa Chhouri; Alexandre Assi; Charles Helou; Hane Lee; Go Hun Seo; Wissam H Joumaa; Said El Shamieh Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Heather A Stiff; Christina M Sloan-Heggen; Ashley Ko; Wanda L Pfeifer; Diana L Kolbe; Carla J Nishimura; Kathy L Frees; Kevin T Booth; Donghong Wang; Amy E Weaver; Hela Azaiez; John Kamholz; Richard J H Smith; Arlene V Drack Journal: Ophthalmic Genet Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 1.803