Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomic and functional correlation of frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDTP) in multiple sclerosis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To study the correlation between the results of frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDTP), visual function (visual acuity, contrast vision, standard automated perimetry (SAP)) and the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) throughout the course of multiple sclerosis (MS). Sixty-six eyes of thirty-three patients suffering from MS were chosen. Thirty-five eyes had a previous history of optic neuritis (ON group) and thirty-one eyes had no previous history of optic neuritis (non-ON group). The FDTP was performed with the N-30 screening program. Visual acuity was determined with the Snellen scale and the ETDRS (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study) scale, the contrast vision with the Pelli-Robson and Sloan tests and the SAP with the Humphrey 750 perimeter. The thickness of the RNFL was measured using the STRATUS OCT™ optical coherence tomography (OCT). The visual field FDTP was divided into three sectors corresponding to the three SAP sectors and to the three RNFL quadrants of the OCT. The FDTP was significantly correlated (P < 0.0001) to the contrast vision and to the SAP results (mean deviation (MD) and the different sectors among themselves). In the ON group, the MD FDTP was significantly correlated to the average RNFL thickness (r = 0.44, P = 0.0091). A decrease of 5 decibels (dB) of the MD FDTP corresponded to a decrease of 11.7 μm of the average RNFL thickness (Y = 2.34 × X + 87.5). The strong correlation with SAP and RNFL confirms the value of FDTP in assessing optic nerve damage throughout the course of MS.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Compston A, Coles A (2002) Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 359:1221–1231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Trobe JD, Beck RW, Moke PS, Cleary PA (1996) Contrast sensitivity and other vision tests in the optic neuritis treatment trial. Am J Ophthalmol 121:547–553

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA (1999) Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:648–656

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Quigley HA (1998) Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol 125:819–829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G et al (2005) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol 58:840–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ (1988) The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sci 1:187–199

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beck RW, Diehl L, Cleary PA (1993) The Optic Neuritis Study Group. The Pelli-Robson Letter Chart: normative data for young adults. Clin Vision Sci 8:207–210

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baier ML, Cutter GR, Rudick RA et al (2005) Low-contrast letter acuity testing captures visual dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology 64:992–995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Balcer LJ, Baier ML, Cohen JA et al (2003) Contrast letter acuity as a visual component for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Neurology 61:1367–1373

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher JB, Jacobs DA, Markowitz CE et al (2006) Relation of visual function to retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in multiple sclerosis. Ophthalmology 113:324–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sponsel WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, Mensah J (1998) Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 125:830–836

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA (2000) Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology 107:1809–1815

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng H, Laron M, Schiffman J, Tang R, Frishman L (2007) The relationship between visual field and retinal nerve fiber layer measurements in patients with multiple sclerosis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:5798–5805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Trip SA, Schlottmann PG, Jones SJ et al (2005) Retinal nerve fiber layer axonal loss and visual dysfunction in optic neuritis. Ann Neurol 58:383–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Verriest G, Van Laethem J, Uvijls A (1982) A new assessment of the normal ranges of the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue test scores. Am J Ophthalmol 93:635–642

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, Higginbotham EJ (2000) Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with Humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol 129:328–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fujimoto N, Adachi-Usami E (2000) Frequency doubling perimetry in resolved optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:2558–2560

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wall M, Johnson CA, Kutzko KE, Nguyen R, Brito C, Keltner JL (1998) Long- and short-term variability of automated perimetry results in patients with optic neuritis and healthy subjects. Arch Ophthalmol 116:53–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wall M, Neabring RK, Woodward KR (2002) Sensitivity and specificity of frequency doubling perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic disorders: a comparison with conventional automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:1277–1283

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Spurr JO, Beck RW (1994) Visual field profile of optic neuritis: one-year follow-up in the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 112:946–953

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sisto D, Trojano M, Vetrugno M, Trabucco T, Iliceto G, Sborgia C (2005) Subclinical visual involvement in multiple sclerosis: a study by MRI, VEPs, frequency-doubling perimetry, standard perimetry, and contrast sensitivity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:1264–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Merle H, Olindo S, Donnio A et al (2010) Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Ophthalmol 20:158–166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Corallo G, Cicinelli S, Papadia M, Bandini F, Uccelli A, Calabria G (2005) Conventional perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology, and visual evoked potentials in the assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis. Eur J Ophthalmol 15:730–738

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim TW, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, Sample PA, Shah N, Weinreb RN (2007) Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detected by frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 114:1053–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Tannenbaum DP, Law SK, Caprioli J (2004) Identifying early glaucoma with optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 137:228–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the subjects who took part in this study. We also thank Agathe Merle (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin), Sarah Meyer (University of Saint-Louis, Missouri), Karen Thérèse (CHU Fort de France), and Eric Ventura (CHU Fort de France).

Conflict of interest

No authors have any financial/conflicting interests to disclose

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’Ophtalmologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Fort de France, Hôpital Pierre Zobda-Quitman, BP 632, 97261, Fort de France Cedex, Martinique, France (French West Indies)

    Harold Merle, Angélique Donnio & Raymond Richer

  2. Service de Neurologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Fort de France, Hôpital Pierre Zobda-Quitman, BP 632, 97261, Fort de France Cedex, Martinique, France (French West Indies)

    Stéphane Olindo, Didier Smadja & Philippe Cabre

Authors
  1. Harold Merle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphane Olindo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angélique Donnio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raymond Richer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Didier Smadja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Philippe Cabre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harold Merle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Merle, H., Olindo, S., Donnio, A. et al. Anatomic and functional correlation of frequency-doubling technology perimetry (FDTP) in multiple sclerosis. Int Ophthalmol 31, 263–270 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-011-9447-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-011-9447-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation