Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Time-dependent effects on contrast sensitivity, near and distance acuity: difference in functional parameters? (Prospective, randomized pilot trial of photodynamic therapy versus full macular translocation)

  • Retinal Disorders
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To report the change of contrast sensitivity (CS) after photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs full macular translocation (FMT) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and to relate this to other measures of visual function (distance and near acuity).

Methods

Fifty patients (50 eyes) with predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) secondary to AMD were randomized to PDT or FMT. CS was measured with Pelli-Robson charts. Acuity scores of near visual function (NVS) were calculated after testing with visual acuity cards of the Swiss National Association of and for the Blind (SNAB). Best corrected distance visual acuity (DVA) was determined according to a standardized protocol with EDTRS charts. Primary end point was the change of CS at 12-month examination from baseline. The interaction of the CS with NVS and DVA was analysed.

Results

Mean CS showed a decrease in both treatment groups (FMT: −2 letters, PDT: −3 letters, p = 0.969) at 12-month examination from baseline. While mean NVS improved by seven letters in the FMT group, a decrease of more than ten letters was seen in the PDT group (p < 0.05). We found no agreement between CS and high-contrast acuity (NVS, DVA). In FMT patients, the parameters at baseline (CS, NVS, DVA) correlated poorly with the corresponding 12-month results, therefore providing no informative basis to predict the later functional development. In contrast, PDT patients showed strong baseline-to-outcome coherence with baseline measures also associated with better final values.

Conclusions

Although FMT can initiate recovery of near and distance acuity over the period of 1 year in selected patients with classic CNV, CS did not differ between FMT and PDT. We found no close connection of CS with DVA or NVS, especially after FMT. Knowledge about the unequal variation of visual parameters can provide more comprehensive information when advising patients on different therapeutic options. That also applies in particular to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, which seem to promise an even higher extent of gain in CS and to reach the peak of recovery at an earlier time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Klein R, Klein BE, Linton KL (1992) Prevalence of age-related maculopathy. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 99:933–943

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Elliott DB (1998) Contrast sensitivity and glare testing. In Borish BJ (eds) Clinical refraction. Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, Mass pp 203–241

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rubin FS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang GH, Munoz B, Schein OD, Fried LP, West SK (2001) The association of multiple visual impairments with self-reported disability: SEE project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:64–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Legge GE, Ross JA, Isenberg LM, LaMay JM (1992) Psychophysics of reading: clinical predictors of low vision reading speed. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33:677–687

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellmann C, Unnebring K, Rubin GS, Miller D, Holz FG (2003) Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241:968–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gelisken F, Voelker M, Schwabe R et al (2007) Full macular translocation versus photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year results of a prospective, controlled, randomised pilot trial (FMT-PDT). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol E-pub

  8. Colenbrander A, Fletcher DC (1990) Visual acuity measurements in low vision patients. J Vis Rehabil 4:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  9. Luke M, Ziemssen F, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Gelisken F (2007) Quality of life in a prospective, randomized pilot-trial of photodynamic therapy versus full macular translocation in treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration – a report of 1 year results. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:1831–1836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Aisenbrey S, Lafaut BA, Szurman P et al (2002) Macular translocation with 360 degrees retinotomy for exudative age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 120:451–459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liou HW, Brennan NA (1998) Letter contrast sensitivity function of the eye. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76:325–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang Y, ANCHOR study group (2007) Two year contrast sensitivity results from the ANCHOR study comparing intravitreal ranbizumab 0.3 mg and 0.5 mg with verteporfin photodynamic therapy for predominantly classic CNV lesions secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:A4545

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ivers QR, Mitchell PM, Cumming RG (2000) Visual function tests, eye disease and symptoms of visual disability: a population-based assessment. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 28:41–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cusick M, SanGiovanni JP, Chew EY et al (2005) Central visual function and the NEI-VFQ-25 near and distance activities subscale scores in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes. Am J Ophthalmol 139:1042–1050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cahill MT, Sinnett SS, Banks AD, Freedman SF, Toth CA (2005) Quality of life after macular translocation with 360 degrees peripheral retinectomy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 112:144–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hazel CA, Petre KL, Armstrong RA, Benson BT, Frost NA (2000) Visual function and subjective quality of life compared in subjects with acquired macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1309–1315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McClure ME, Hart PM, Jackson AJ, Stevenson MR, Chakravarthy (2000) Macular degeneration: do conventional measurements of impaired visual function equate with visual disability? Br J Ophthalmol 84:244–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tejeria L, Harper RA, Artes PH, Dickinson CM (2007) Face recognition in age related macular degeneration: perceived disability, measured disability, and performance with a bioptic device. Br J Ophthalmol 86:1019–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Patel I, Turano KA, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Munoz B, West SK (2006) Measures of visual function and percentage of preferred walking speed in older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:65–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lord SR, Clark RD, Webster IW (1991) Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in relation to falls in an elderly population. Age and Ageing 20:175–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee HKM, Scudds RJ (2003) Comparison of balance in older people with and without visual impairment. Age and Ageing 32:643–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman EE, Egleston BL, West SK, Bandeen-Roche K, Rubin G (2005) Visual acuity change and mortality in older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:4040–4045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lai JC, Lapolice DJ, Stinnett SS et al (2002) Visual outcomes following macular translocation with 360° peripheral retinectomy. Arch Ophthalmol 120:1317–1324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fujikado T, Asonuma S, Ohji M et al (2002) Reading ability after macular translocation surgery with 360-degree retinotomy. Am J Ophthalmol 134:849–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Toth CA, Lapolice DJ, Banks AD, Stinnett SS (2004) Improvement in near visual function after macular translocation surgery with 360-degree peripheral retinectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 242:541–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rubin GS, Bressler NM, TAP Study Group. (2002) Effects of verteporfin therapy on contrast sensitivity. Retina 22:536–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M et al (2006) Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 355:1432–1444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital, Eberhard-Karls University, Schleichstr. 12-16, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany

    Focke Ziemssen, Matthias Lüke, Karl U. Bartz-Schmidt & Faik Gelisken

Authors
  1. Focke Ziemssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Lüke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karl U. Bartz-Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Faik Gelisken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Focke Ziemssen.

Additional information

Focke Ziemssen and Matthias Lüke contributed to the manuscript equally.

The authors have no financial interests related to the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ziemssen, F., Lüke, M., Bartz-Schmidt, K.U. et al. Time-dependent effects on contrast sensitivity, near and distance acuity: difference in functional parameters? (Prospective, randomized pilot trial of photodynamic therapy versus full macular translocation). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246, 653–659 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-007-0726-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-007-0726-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation