April 2009
Volume 50, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2009
Fixation Location in Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • L. Pearce
    Department of Ophthalmology, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • S. Sivaprasad
    Department of Ophthalmology, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • V. Chong
    Oxford Eye Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  L. Pearce, None; S. Sivaprasad, None; V. Chong, Novartis, R.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2009, Vol.50, 742. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      L. Pearce, S. Sivaprasad, V. Chong; Fixation Location in Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(13):742.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To evaluate the fixation of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with Lucentis as compared to those treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT) or without treatment.

Methods: : Forty five consecutive patients attending the Macular Clinic have been included in the study. Fixation location and stability were analysed using the Nidek MP-1 microperimeter.

Results: : There were 17 males and 28 females, the average age was 79.6 years (range 62 - 90). Out of the 90 eyes, 45 eyes were treated with Lucentis, 24 eyes were treated with PDT or untreated neovascular AMD, and 21 eyes had early AMD. Twenty eight (62.2%) out of 45 eyes has central fixation in the Lucentis treated group, but only 2 (8.3%) out of 24 eyes has central fixation in PDT treated or untreated group. Within the Lucentis group, the mean visual acuity was 56.0 letters (range 21 to 79) and 43.4 letters (range 23 to 69) in those with and without central fixation respectively.

Conclusions: : Lucentis treated patients are more likely to have central fixation as compared to PDT treated or untreated patients. Different visual rehabilitation strategies might require to be employed in different patient. As a group, those with central fixation have better visual acuity, but individually visual acuity is not a good predictor of central fixation. Nidek MP-1 might provide a simple method to sub-divide the patients requiring different visual rehabilitation methods in Lucentis treated patients.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration • low vision • perimetry 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.