4.4 Article

SCOTOPIC AND FAST MESOPIC MICROPERIMETRY IN EYES WITH DRUSEN AND RETICULAR PSEUDODRUSEN

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 39, Issue 12, Pages 2378-2383

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002335

Keywords

age-related macular degeneration; dark adaptation; drusen; mesopic microperimetry; microperimetry; pseudodrusen; retinal sensitivity; scotopic microperimetry

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility in the clinical practice of a fast and simple mesopic microperimetry examination comparing the retinal sensitivity in eyes with drusen and reticular pseudodrusen by scotopic and mesopic testing. Methods: In eyes with only drusen and only reticular pseudodrusen, retinal sensitivity was assessed by mesopic testing and after 35 minutes of dark adaptation by scotopic testing using 2 grids of 6 and 10 stimulus points. Results: Fifteen eyes with drusen and 14 eyes with reticular pseudodrusen were enrolled with mean best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20. In mesopic and scotopic examination, we found significant higher retinal sensitivity of eyes with drusen compared with reticular pseudodrusen (P < 0.001). The mean duration of the examination of mesopic testing was less than 2 minutes, significantly reduced compared with scotopic testing (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Eyes with reticular pseudodrusen presented a significantly reduced retinal sensitivity than eyes with drusen with scotopic and mesopic testing. The different retinal sensitivity between patients was found despite both group presenting good visual acuity. The retinal sensitivity evaluated by mesopic testing may replace the use of scotopic testing and best-corrected visual acuity examination, saving time and providing useful information in the assessment of macular function to identify patients with risk of disease progression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available