4.6 Article

Visual field changes after cataract extraction: The AGIS experience

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 138, Issue 6, Pages 1022-1028

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.08.006

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY12738] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that cataract extraction in glaucomatous eyes improves overall sensitivity of visual function without affecting the size or depth of glaucomatous scotomas. DESIGN: Experimental study with no control group. METHODS: One hundred fifty,eight eyes (of 140 patients) from the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study with at least two reliable visual fields within a year both before and after cataract surgery were included. Average mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and corrected pattern standard deviation (CPSD) were compared before and after cataract extraction. To evaluate changes in scotoma size, the number of abnormal points (P < .05) on the pattern deviation plot was compared before and after surgery. We described an index (scotoma depth index) to investigate changes of scotoma depth after surgery. RESULTS: Mean values for MD, PSD, and CPSD were -13.2, 6.4, and 5.9 dB before and -11.9, 6.8, and 6.2 dB after cataract surgery (P less than or equal to .001 for all comparisons). Mean (+/- SD) number of abnormal points on pattern deviation plot was 26.7 +/- 9.4 and 27.5 +/- 9.0 before and after cataract surgery, respectively (P = .02). Scotoma depth index did not change after cataract extraction -19.3 vs -19.2 dB, P = .90). CONCLUSIONS: Cataract extraction caused generalized improvement of the visual field, which was most marked in eyes with less advanced glaucomatous damage. Although the enlargement of scotomas was statistically significant, it was not clinically meaningful. No improvement of sensitivity was observed in the deepest part of the scotomas. (C) 2004 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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