Purchase this article with an account.
C. Brue, F. Luciani, P. Battistini, C. Fortuna, C. Mariotti, A. Giovannini; Follow Up of Optic Papillitis by Mp-1 Microperimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):919.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To evaluate the effectiveness of MP-1 mycroperimetry in the diagnosis and follow-up of acute optic papillitis.
31 patients were considered suffering for acute optic monolateral papillitis (15 male and 16 female, mean age 67±18 years old). All patients were admitted through the emergency service of the Ophthalmic department of Ancona and they complained a recent onset of visual symptons. A Complete ophthalmologic exam including visual acuity, pupillary assessment, color vision evaluation, dilated retinal examination with optic nerve assessment, visual field (Humphrey 30-2 VF), Fluorescein Angiography, and a neurologic work-up were performed for all patients. Each subject was evalueted with sierologic exams and imaging examinations (MRI or CT) on the basis of clinical findings. Mapping of the blind spot (BS) and retinal peripapillary sensitivity assessment were performed by Mp-1 (white G I stimuli) in all cases at presentation,one week and 6 months later during follow up. A proper therapy was given based on the etiology.
Mean VA at presentation was: 1/50 (range: hm - 0.1), VA after 6 months was: 0.4 (range: hm - 0,8). BS enlargement was detected in all cases compared to fellow eye. Peripapillary retinal sensitivity was 3,6 dB average in the affected eye and 11,3 dB in the fellow eye.Microperimetry showed BS reduction and improving retinal sensitivity during follow up ( range of retinal sensitivity improvement after 6 month: 0 - 9,80 dB). Standard 30-2 Humprey VF showed BS enlargement just in most severe cases, peripheral scotomas and VF findings were not significantly changed after one week in 78% of cases.
Microperimetry can precisely assess blind spot size and peripapillary sensitivity in course of acute optic papillitis also at early stages while standard 30-2 VF is not as much sensitive and accurate.This method could help detecting an early therapeutic response at very early stages while VF and VA findings are not helpful.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only