4.6 Article

Kinetics of visual field loss in Usher syndrome type II

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 784-792

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.03-0906

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY000409] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG99056] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC01813] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To characterize the kinetics of visual field decay in Usher syndrome type II. METHODS. The area of 137 Goldmann visual fields (GVFs) delimited with the I4e and V4e targets was measured in each eye of 19 patients with an established diagnosis of Usher syndrome type II, and the average interocular GVF area for each patient at each time point was calculated. The average follow-up was 5.58 years. Symptomatic disease duration was defined as years elapsed after symptoms were first noted. The data set (n = 67 for the We target; n = 70 for the V4e target) was analyzed with a random coefficient mixed model to identify the best-fit model describing the decay of visual field size over time. The half-life of the residual visual field area (t(0.5)) was also calculated. RESULTS. The variable that best explained the decay of the GVF area was the duration of symptomatic disease. In an exponential model, the slope estimate for the natural log of the GVF area was -0.172 for the We target and -0.136 for the V4e target for each year of symptomatic disease. Accordingly, t(0.5) was approximately 4 years for the I4e target and 5 years for the V4e target. These estimates are very similar to those in previous studies of nonsyndromic retinitis pigmentosa (RP). CONCLUSIONS. This study suggests that the kinetics of GVF decline in Usher syndrome type 11 are, on average, very similar to other forms of RP and that, once the disease becomes symptomatic, GVF deterioration follows stereotyped kinetics, even in patients with late-onset retinal disease.

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