Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 268–274 | Cite as

Concentric division of 10° visual field tests in retinitis pigmentosa

  • Ken Ogino
  • Atsushi Otani
  • Akio Oishi
  • Masafumi Kurimoto
  • Takuro Sekiya
  • Nagahisa Yoshimura
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to estimate the optimal size of visual field test for detecting longitudinal changes in retinitis pigmentosa (RP) by dividing the visual field.

Methods

We reviewed the results of 10° static visual field tests in 19 eyes of 19 RP patients. Sixty-eight numeric value points were divided into two area types: concentric areas (A1, A1–2, A1–3, A1–4, A1–5, A1–6) and circular areas (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6). Serial values of mean sensitivity in each area of each patient were analyzed by linear regression.

Results

Analysis of the concentric areas showed that 10 of 19 eyes had the best R2 value in the most central area, A1. Analysis of circular areas showed that 7 of 19 eyes had the steepest slope of decline in A1. The inner-segment/outer-segment (IS/OS) line was significantly shorter in eyes with low variability and evident disease progression in the inner areas than the ones in the outer areas.

Conclusions

The optimal size of monitoring RP progression was different in each case and may depend on the remaining morphology of the outer retina.

Keywords

Retinitis pigmentosa Visual field Static perimetry 

References

  1. 1.
    Hartong DT, Berson EL, Dryja TP. Retinitis pigmentosa. Lancet. 2006;368:1795–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim LS, McAnany JJ, Alexander KR, Fishman GA. Intersession repeatability of Humphrey perimetry measurements in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:4720–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirakawa H, Iijima H, Gohdo T, Imai M, Tsukahara S. Progression of defects in the central 10-degree visual field of patients with retinitis pigmentosa and choroideremia. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127:436–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Felius J, Thompson DA, Khan NW, Bingham EL, Jamison JA, Kemp JA, et al. Clinical course and visual function in a family with mutations in the RPE65 gene. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:55–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hood DC, Ramachandran R, Holopigian K, Lazow M, Birch DG, Greenstein VC. Method for deriving visual field boundaries from OCT scans of patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Biomed Opt Express. 2011;2:1106–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abe K, Iijima H, Hirakawa H, Tsukahara Y, Toda Y. Visual acuity and 10 degrees automated static perimetry in eyes with retinitis pigmentosa. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2002;46:581–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakazawa M, Ohguro H, Takeuchi K, Miyagawa Y, Ito T, Metoki T. Effect of nilvadipine on central visual field in retinitis pigmentosa: a 30-month clinical trial. Ophthalmologica. 2011;225:120–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berson EL, Rosner B, Sandberg MA, Weigel-DiFranco C, Brockhurst RJ, Hayes KC, et al. Clinical trial of lutein in patients with retinitis pigmentosa receiving vitamin A. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:403–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berson EL, Rosner B, Sandberg MA, Weigel-DiFranco C, Moser A, Brockhurst RJ, et al. Clinical trial of docosahexaenoic acid in patients with retinitis pigmentosa receiving vitamin A treatment. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujimoto N. Comparison of a five-degree visual field between two programs of different testing field range. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:866–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duggan C, Sommer A, Auer C, Burkhard K. Automated differential threshold perimetry for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;100:420–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sommer A, Duggan C, Auer C, Abbey H. Analytic approaches to the interpretation of automated threshold perimetric data for the diagnosis of early glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1985;83:250–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suzuki Y, Araie M, Ohashi Y. Sectorization of the central 30 degrees visual field in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:69–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wirtschafter JD, Becker WL, Howe JB, Younge BR. Glaucoma visual field analysis by computed profile of nerve fiber function in optic disc sectors. Ophthalmology. 1982;89:255–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iijima H. Correlation between visual sensitivity loss and years affected for eyes with retinitis pigmentosa. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2012;56:224–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spry PG, Johnson CA. Identification of progressive glaucomatous visual field loss. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002;47:158–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:19–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rangaswamy NV, Patel HM, Locke KG, Hood DC, Birch DG. A comparison of visual field sensitivity to photoreceptor thickness in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:4213–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ken Ogino
    • 1
  • Atsushi Otani
    • 1
  • Akio Oishi
    • 1
  • Masafumi Kurimoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Takuro Sekiya
    • 3
  • Nagahisa Yoshimura
    • 1
  1. 1.The Department of Ophthalmology and Visual SciencesKyoto University Graduate School of MedicineKyotoJapan
  2. 2.The Department of OphthalmologyKatsura HospitalKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Regulatory Science Division, Clinical DevelopmentSenju Pharmaceutical Co. LtdKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations