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)

  • Focke Ziemssen
  • Matthias Lüke
  • Karl U. Bartz-Schmidt
  • Faik Gelisken
Retinal Disorders

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.

Keywords

Age-related macular degeneration Contrast sensitivity Full macular translocation Near vision Photodynamic therapy Visual acuity Surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Klein R, Klein BE, Linton KL (1992) Prevalence of age-related maculopathy. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 99:933–943PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elliott DB (1998) Contrast sensitivity and glare testing. In Borish BJ (eds) Clinical refraction. Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, Mass pp 203–241Google Scholar
  4. 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 42:64–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Legge GE, Ross JA, Isenberg LM, LaMay JM (1992) Psychophysics of reading: clinical predictors of low vision reading speed. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33:677–687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 241:968–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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-pubGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colenbrander A, Fletcher DC (1990) Visual acuity measurements in low vision patients. J Vis Rehabil 4:1–9Google Scholar
  9. 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 248:1831–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aisenbrey S, Lafaut BA, Szurman P et al (2002) Macular translocation with 360 degrees retinotomy for exudative age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 120:451–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liou HW, Brennan NA (1998) Letter contrast sensitivity function of the eye. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76:325–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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:A4545Google Scholar
  13. 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 28:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 139:1042–1050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 112:144–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 41:1309–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 84:244–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 86:1019–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 47:65–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lord SR, Clark RD, Webster IW (1991) Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in relation to falls in an elderly population. Age and Ageing 20:175–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee HKM, Scudds RJ (2003) Comparison of balance in older people with and without visual impairment. Age and Ageing 32:643–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 46:4040–4045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lai JC, Lapolice DJ, Stinnett SS et al (2002) Visual outcomes following macular translocation with 360° peripheral retinectomy. Arch Ophthalmol 120:1317–1324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fujikado T, Asonuma S, Ohji M et al (2002) Reading ability after macular translocation surgery with 360-degree retinotomy. Am J Ophthalmol 134:849–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 242:541–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rubin GS, Bressler NM, TAP Study Group. (2002) Effects of verteporfin therapy on contrast sensitivity. Retina 22:536–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M et al (2006) Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 355:1432–1444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Focke Ziemssen
    • 1
  • Matthias Lüke
    • 1
  • Karl U. Bartz-Schmidt
    • 1
  • Faik Gelisken
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Ophthalmology, University Eye HospitalEberhard-Karls UniversityTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations