May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
Microperimetry Biofeedback in AMD
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D. Domanico
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
  • I. Domanico
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
  • S. Cavarretta
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
  • S. Putano
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
  • E. M. Vingolo
    Ophthalmology, Univ of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships D. Domanico, None; I. Domanico, None; S. Cavarretta, None; S. Putano, None; E.M. Vingolo, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 5109. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D. Domanico, I. Domanico, S. Cavarretta, S. Putano, E. M. Vingolo; Microperimetry Biofeedback in AMD. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):5109.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose:: Age related Macular Degeneration is one the most chellenging diseases and cause of low vision involving more than 30% of patients with AMD. Rehabilitation of AMD patients more frequently involves stabilisation and creation of a new PRL instead of a original fovea.

Methods:: 15 patients (age 64-85) were analysed and underwent to 10 session of BFD lasting 10 minutes reaching a fixation point more stable to the higher sensitive retinal location screened with MP-1 microperimetry.

Results:: 1. Visual Acuity: Before BFD treatment visual acuity was 0.09 +/-0.03. After microperimetric biofeedback the VA increased to 0.18+/- 0.07, the p value was not statistically significant (p=0.054). Near visual acuity increased from a mean value of 36.4 cp to 11.7 cp; this value was statistically significant (p=0.031). 2. Fixation Patterns Stability: At baseline none of the eyes presented stable fixation (level I), 7.42% (2 eyes) had relatively stable fixation patterns, 55.55% (15 eyes) presented relatively unstable fixation and 37.03% (15 eyes) was included in level IV. None of the patients had a clearly identified PRL. After BFD, 4 eyes (14.81%) showed stable fixation, 29.62% (8 eyes) presented relatively stable fixation, 37.03% (10 eyes) relatively unstable and only 5 eyes (18.52%) had unstable fixation. Finally 13 eyes (48.45%) developed a clearly evident PRL within the macular area. Student's t test evidenced a statistically significative increase in average fixation stability and mean single point retinal sensitivity (p=0.0023).Obtained results showed an increase of visual acuity, reading speed and retinal sensitivity. Those were very interesting values because of marked increase of vision efficency.Discussion: Experimental data obtained from our study are extremely interesting both regarding statistical significance and in the evaluation of retinal sensitivity. Patients showed a marked increase in single point retinal sensitivity and subjectively a better quality of vision as shown by measuring this parameter at baseline and at the end of biofeedback stimulation.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration • retina • 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.