4.6 Article

Retinal contraction and metamorphopsia scores in eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 46, Issue 8, Pages 2961-2966

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-1104

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. Using M-CHARTS (Inami Co., Tokyo, Japan), which were developed by the authors to measure metamorphopsia, and image-analysis software, which was developed to quantify retinal contraction, the authors investigated the relationship between the degree of retinal contraction and the degree of metamorphopsia in eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM). METHODS. This study was conducted in 29 eyes with ERM ( 29 patients, 20 women; mean age, 62.1 +/- 8.6 years) observed for at least 3 years ( mean, 3.55 +/- 0.6 years) after diagnosis. Horizontal (MH) and vertical (MV) metamorphopsia scores were obtained with the M-CHARTS. Horizontal and vertical retinal contraction due to ERM was measured by using image-analysis software developed by the authors to calculate horizontal and vertical components of changes in the locations of retinal vessels on sequential fundus images. RESULTS. There was a significant ( P < 0.01) positive correlation between the degree of retinal contraction and metamorphopsia score. In addition, there were significant positive correlations between horizontal contraction of the retina and the MV score ( P < 0.01) and between vertical contraction of the retina and the MH score ( P < 0.05). No significant correlations were found between change in the metamorphopsia score and change in visual acuity or mean defect. CONCLUSIONS. Metamorphopsia scores correlate well with measurements of retinal contraction due to idiopathic ERM. Using M-CHARTS is a simple and useful method for quantitatively monitoring metamorphopsia in patients with ERM.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available