advertisement
Abstract #72719 Published in IGR 18-4
Association of Structural and Functional Measures With Contrast Sensitivity in Glaucoma
Fatehi N; Nowroozizadeh S; Henry S; Coleman AL; Caprioli J; Nouri-Mahdavi KAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology 2017; 178: 129-139
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that structural and functional measures predict contrast sensitivity (CS) outcomes in glaucomatous eyes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional prospective study. METHODS: One hundred five eyes of 65 patients who underwent macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography imaging, 24-2 standard achromatic visual fields (VF), and CS measurement on the same day were enrolled. Association of CS at 4 spatial frequencies (3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree, cpd) with structural and functional outcomes was explored with correlation and regression analyses. RESULTS: The median (IQR) 24-2 visual field mean deviation was -7.6 (-11.1 to -3.0). Significant correlations were found between CS at 6 cpd and ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer thickness at inferotemporal and inferonasal macular sectors (ρ = 0.222, P = .023 and ρ = 0.209, P = .032, respectively). CS at 6 cpd demonstrated higher correlations with full macular thickness measurements, the strongest of which was with the central macular thickness in the superior 6 × 3-degree region (ρ = 0.311, P = .001). Contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd also had the strongest correlation with mean deviation of the 4 central VF points (ρ = -0.420; P < .001). There was a significant correlation between logMAR visual acuity and contrast sensitivity at 6, 12, and 18 cpd (ρ = -0.306, ρ = -0.348 and ρ = -0.241, P < .013, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Structural and functional measures showed a fair relationship with contrast sensitivity. This association was most prominent between full-thickness macular measures or central VF parameters and CS at 6 cpd. Contrast sensitivity was not a reliable surrogate for glaucoma severity in this cross-sectional study.
Glaucoma Division, Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Full articleClassification:
6.6.3 Special methods (e.g. color, contrast, SWAP etc.) (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.9.2.2 Posterior (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.9 Computerized image analysis > 6.9.2 Optical coherence tomography)
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
