Advertisement

Assessment of vision-related quality of life in patients with homonymous visual field defects

  • Eleni PapageorgiouEmail author
  • Gregor Hardiess
  • Frank Schaeffel
  • Horst Wiethoelter
  • Hans-Otto Karnath
  • Hanspeter Mallot
  • Birgitt Schoenfisch
  • Ulrich Schiefer
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Background and purpose

Homonymous visual field defects (HVFDs) are among the most common disorders that occur in the elderly after vascular brain damage and can have a major impact on quality of life (QOL). Aims of this study were to describe the vision-targeted, health-related QOL in patients with HVFDs after cerebrovascular lesion, and to determine the relationship between patients’ self-reported difficulties and the characteristics of HVFDs in the binocular visual field.

Methods

The German version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) was used. NEI-VFQ-25 scores for patients were compared to reference values of healthy German subjects from Franke (Z Med Psychol 7:178–184, 1999). Extent and location of absolute HVFDs were assessed by binocular semi-automated kinetic perimetry (SKP) within the 90° visual field. Correlations of the NEI-VFQ-25 scores of patients with the area of sparing within the affected hemifield (A-SPAR) were estimated by Spearman’s r s.

Results

The mean NEI-VFQ-25 composite score for 33 patients (time span after brain injury at least 6 months) was 77.1, which was significantly lower (p < 0.0001) than the reference value for 360 healthy subjects (composite score = 90.6), and this was also the case for general vision, near activities, vision specific mental health, driving, colour, and peripheral vision. The score for general health was also significantly lower in patients than in reference subjects (p < 0.0001). A weak correlation of the composite score with A-SPAR (r s = 0.38) was observed.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that detectable decrements in vision-targeted, health-related QOL are observed in patients with homonymous visual field loss. A relationship of the perceived visual functioning with objective parameters is by definition difficult; however, understanding what components of visual function affect certain visual tasks, would help in developing more efficient, clinical assessment strategies. The results reveal a tendency for increasing QOL with advancing size of the area of sparing within the affected hemifield (A-SPAR). The lack of a strong correlation between NEI-VFQ-25 subscales and A-SPAR suggests that an assessment of the visual field may not accurately reflect patients’ perceived difficulty in visual tasks. Additional consideration of visual exploration via eye and head movements may improve the correlation between visual function and its perception.

Keywords

Homonymous hemianopia Homonymous visual field defect Vascular brain damage Questionnaire Exploration Visual exploration Quality of life (QOL) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Rehabilitation Centre Bad Urach, European Union (PERACT- Marie Curie Early Stage Training MEST-CT-2004-504321) and RAND Health Corporation for their support for this study. The authors are also indebted to one of the referees of this manuscript for providing some control values and to PD Dr. Anne Kurtenbach for helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Adler M, Naskar R, Thanos S, Groppe M (2004) Validation of German-language versions of visual function indexes (VF-14 and VFQ-25). 102. Annual meeting of the German Ophthalmological Society, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aulhorn E (1953) Über Fixationsbreite und Fixationsfrequenz beim Lesen gerichteter Konturen. Pflügers Arch 257:318–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier B, Karnath HO (2005) Incidence and diagnosis of anosognosia for hemiparesis revisited. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 76:358–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bisiach E, Vallar G, Perani D, Papagno C, Berti A (1986) Unawareness of disease following lesions of the right hemisphere: anosognosia for hemiplegia and anosognosia for hemianopia. Neuropsychologia 24:471–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradley E, Bradley D, Bartley G (2006) Evaluating health-related quality of life in ophthalmic disease. Arch Ophthalmol 124:121–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cahill MT, Stinett 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 112:144–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carod-Artal J, Egido JA, Gonzalez JL, Varela de Seijas E (2000) Quality of life among stroke survivors evaluated 1 year after stroke: experience of a stroke unit. Stroke 31:2995–3000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coeckelbergh TR, Brouwer WH, Cornelissen FW, Van Wolffelaar P, Kooijman AC (2002) The effect of visual field defects on driving performance: a driving simulator study. Arch Ophthalmol 120:1509–1516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franke G, Esser J, Voigtlaender A, Maehner N (1998) Erste Ergebnisse zur psychometrischen Prüfung des NEI-VFQ (National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire), eines psychodiagnostischen Verfahrens zur Erfassung der Lebensqualität bei Sehbeeinträchtigten. Z Med Psychol 7:178–184Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franke GH (1999) Handbuch zum National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) - ein psychodiagnostisches Verfahren zur Erfassung der Lebensqualität bei Sehbeeinträchtigten. Eigendruck, EssenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franke GH, Esser J, Reimer J, Maehner N (2002) Vision targeted quality of life under different degrees of visual impairment. Rev Port Psicossom 4:39–49Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franke GH, Maehner N, Reimer J, Voigtlaender-Fleiss A, Esser J (2003) Ein psychodiagnostischer Zugang zur Erfassung der EinbuBen an gesundheitsbezogener Lebensqualität bei verringerter Sehkraft. Z Med Psychol 12:57–62Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gauthier L, Dehaut F, Joannette Y (1989) The bells test: a quantitative and qualitative test for visual neglect. Int J Clin Neuropsychol 11:49–54Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, Gordon M, Cioffi GA, Ritch R, Sherwood M, Meng K, Mangione CM (1997) Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol 115:777–784PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haacke C, Althaus A, Spottke A, Siebert U, Back T, Dodel R (2006) Long-term outcome after stroke: evaluating health-related quality of life using utility measurements. Stroke 37:193–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hall TA, MacGwin G, Searcey K, Xie A, Hupp SL, Owsley C, Kline LB (2006) Health-related quality of life and psychosocial characteristics of patients with benign essential blepharospasm. Arch Ophthalmol 124:116–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jampel HD, Schwartz A, Pollack I, Abrams D, Weiss H, Miller R (2002) Glaucoma patients’ assessment of their visual function and quality of life. J Glaucoma 11:154–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johannsen L, Karnath HO (2004) How efficient is a simple copying task to diagnose spatial neglect in its chronic phase? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 26:251–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karnath HO (2002) Anosognosie. In: Hartje W, Poeck K (eds) Klinische Neuropsychologie, 5th edn. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 361–371Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerkhoff G, Schaub J, Zihl J (1990) Assessment of cerebral visual disorders by patient-questionnaire. Nervenarzt 61:711–718PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kerkhoff G (2000) Neurovisual rehabilitation: recent developments and future directions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 68:691–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lanthony P (1987) Assessment of desaturated panel D-15 II: comparison between desaturated panel D-15 and Farnsworth 100-hue tests. J Fr Ophtalmol 10:579–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leff AP, Crewes H, Plant GT, Scott SK, Kennard C, Wise RJ (2001) The functional anatomy of single-word reading in patients with hemianopic and pure alexia. Brain 124:510–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leff AP, Scott SK, Crewes H, Hodgson TL, Cowey A, Howard D, Wise RJ (2000) Impaired reading in patients with right hemianopia. Ann Neurol 47:171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lu DW, Azuara-Blanco A, Spaeth G, Collur S, Speicher MA, Araujo S (1998) Visual limitations assessment in patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 82:1347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD (2001) Development of the 25-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 119:1050–1058PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, Gutierrez P, Berry S, Hays RD (1998) Psychometric properties of the national eye institute visual function questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Arch Ophthalmol 116:1496–1504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meienberg O, Zangemeister WH, Rosenberg M, Hoyt WF, Stark L (1981) Saccadic eye movement strategies in patients with homonymous hemianopia. Ann Neurol 9:537–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nelson P, Aspinall P, O’Brien C (1999) Patients’ perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol 83:546–552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pambakian AL, Kennard C (1997) Can visual function be restored in patients with homonymous hemianopia? Br J Ophthalmol 81:324–328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parrish RK, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, Feuer WJ, Schiffman JC, Mangione CM, Montenegro-Piniella A (1997) Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 115:1447–1455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pohjasvaara T, Erkinjuntti T, Vataja R, Kaste M (1997) Comparison of stroke features and disability in daily life in patients with ischemic stroke aged 55 to 70 and 71 to 85 years. Stroke 28:729–735PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pohjasvaara T, Leppavuori A, Siira I, Vataja R, Kaste M, Erkinjuntti T (1998) Frequency and clinical determinants of poststroke depression. Stroke 29:2311–2317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    R Development Core Team (2005) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  35. 35.
    Ringsdorf L, McGwin G, Owsley C (2006) Visual field defects and vision-specific health-related quality of life in African Americans and Whites with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 15:414–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schiefer U, Hofer R, Vischer PM, Wilhelm H (2000) Perimetry findings and driving performance. “How much visual field” does a motorist need? [Article in German] Ophthalmologe 97:491–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stasheff SE, Barton JJ (2001) Deficits in cortical visual function. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 14:217–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Szlyk JP, Fishman GA, Alexander KR, Revelins BI, Derlacki DJ, Anderson RJ (1997) Relationship between difficulty in performing daily activities and clinical measures of visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 115:53–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Szlyk JP, Fishman GA, Grover S, Revelins BI, Derlacki DJ (1998) Difficulty in performing everyday activities in patients with juvenile macular dystrophies: comparison with patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Br J Ophthalmol 82:1372–1376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taylor JF (1982) Vision and driving. Practitioner 226:885–889PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rijn LJ (Ed) (2005) New standards for the visual functions of drivers. Report of the Eyesight Working Group, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/home/drivinglicence/fitnesstodrive/index_en.htm
  42. 42.
    Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Reinhard J (1998) Eye movements in reading with hemianopic field defects: the significance of clinical parameters. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 236:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Reinhard J (1998) The vertical field border in hemianopia and its significance for fixation and reading. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:2177–2186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, Fontana L, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (1999) Severity and stability of glaucoma: patient perception compared with objective measurement. Arch Ophthalmol 117:450–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zangemeister WH, Utz P (2002) An increase in a virtual hemianopic field defect enhances the efficiency of secondary adaptive gaze strategies. Curr Psychol Cogn 21:281–303Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang X, Kedar S, Lynn MJ, Newman NJ, Biousse V (2006) Natural history of homonymous hemianopia. Neurology 66:901–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zihl J (1988) The influence of homonymous visual field disorders on colour sorting performance in the FM 100-hue test. Neuropsychologia 26:869–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zihl J (1995) Visual scanning behavior in patients with homonymous hemianopia. Neuropsychologia 33:287–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zihl J (2000) Rehabilitation of visual disorders after brain injury. Psychology Press, Hove, East SussexGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleni Papageorgiou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregor Hardiess
    • 2
  • Frank Schaeffel
    • 1
  • Horst Wiethoelter
    • 3
  • Hans-Otto Karnath
    • 4
  • Hanspeter Mallot
    • 2
  • Birgitt Schoenfisch
    • 5
  • Ulrich Schiefer
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ophthalmology, Institute of Ophthalmic ResearchUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, Lab of Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyBuerger HospitalStuttgartGermany
  4. 4.Section of Neuropsychology, Centre for NeurologyUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Medical BiometryUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations