3.8 Article

Spatial agreement between Goldmann visual field defects and fundus autofluorescence in patients with birdshot chorioretinopathy

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s12348-016-0085-0

Keywords

Birdshot chorioretinopathy; Goldmann visual field; Autofluorescence; Uveitis; Ultra-wide field imaging

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The purpose of this paper is to study the spatial agreement between visual field defects and ultra-wide field (UWF) fundus autofluorescence (FAF) in patients with birdshot chorioretinopathy (BSCR). The study is a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of a university uveitis practice. Eight (8) eyes of five (5) patients with BSCR were included. Inclusion criteria were ability to fixate reliably. Goldmann visual fields (GVF) and UWF FAF were obtained, digitalized, and standardized. Analysis was performed by measuring areas of overlap of hypo-autofluorescent FAF lesions and GVF scotomas within the central 60 degrees. Overlap was calculated as a percentage of the total area of FAF and GVF, respectively. Average areas were also calculated. Results: The mean age of the subjects was 51 +/- 12.28 years (range 38-69 years). 14 +/- 23 % of the total lesion area identified as hypo-autofluorescent on FAF overlapped with scotoma. 28 +/- 41 % of the GVF scotomas overlapped with hypo-autofluorescent FAF lesions. Average area of FAF hypo-autofluorescence was much larger (15.19 disc areas) than GVF (3.45 disc areas). Conclusions: There appear to be larger total areas of hypo-autofluorescence on FAF than scotoma evidenced by GVF and only a small amount of overlap. The finding suggests that GVF is relatively insensitive to anatomic loss, which can be detected using FAF. Further studies are required to assess whether this finding holds true for automated white-on-white perimetry. In addition, more selective psychophysical stimuli may have higher sensitivity in detecting early functional loss that accompanies anatomic damage.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available