Purchase this article with an account.
Ethan Bensinger, Katharina G Foote, Jessica J. Wong, Jacque L Duncan, Austin Roorda; Structure and Function of Dysflective Cones in Healthy and Diseased Eyes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):1031.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To characterize the structure and function of dysflective cones in normal subjects and in patients with Macular Telangiectasia type 2 (MacTel). Dysflective cones exhibit measurable function but are not seen in confocal adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) images and lack inner/outer segment junction and cone outer segment tip reflections in optical coherence tomography (OCT) B-scans.
AOSLO and Adaptive Optics Microperimetry (AOMP) were used to assess the structure and function of areas identified as possible dysflective cones in 3 healthy subjects and 2 patients. AOMP thresholds were measured with 543 nm light (equally sensed by L and M cones) and computed as the average of 2, 35-trial adaptive staircase (QUEST) sessions. Due to the small size of the dysflective areas in healthy eyes (average area of 8.3 arcmin2) AOMP utilized a stimulus size of less than 1 arcmin, and transverse chromatic aberration was measured before and after testing to confirm that the stimulus remained on target. Patients, who had larger dysflective regions, were tested with a stimulus size of 3.45 arcmin. Suspected dysflective and normal-appearing cones at similar eccentricities were tested in each group. Whenever possible, subjects were imaged with confocal AOSLO, split detector AOSLO, and OCT.
All subjects had measurable function in the dysflective cone area. 2 of the 3 healthy subjects showed no difference in function in the dysflective area compared to adjacent areas. Cones in one healthy subject’s dysflective area regained normal reflective properties after 2 weeks. The 3rd healthy subject had 3x reduced sensitivity within the dysflective area. Both patients had reduced, but measurable, sensitivity within the dysflective area. One patient had no measurable sensitivity in the middle of the lesion but measurable sensitivity at the dysflective border. These corresponded to regions in the split-detection images without and with visible inner segments, respectively.
For the first time (i) dysflective cones have been identified in healthy subjects and (ii) we observe instances where dysflective cones in healthy subjects regain normal reflective properties. Finally, we used split detector imaging to further refine the dysflective cone phenotype in MacTel patients, and suggest that visible inner segments are present in dysflective cones with measurable function.
This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only