June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Macular rod function in retinitis pigmentosa (RP): Comparison of scotopic microperimeter to modified Humphrey field analyzer
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Arun kumar Krishnan
    Perelman School of Medicine, Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Alejandro Roman
    Perelman School of Medicine, Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Malgorzata Swider
    Perelman School of Medicine, Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Samuel G Jacobson
    Perelman School of Medicine, Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Artur V Cideciyan
    Perelman School of Medicine, Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Arun Krishnan, None; Alejandro Roman, None; Malgorzata Swider, None; Samuel Jacobson, None; Artur Cideciyan, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 3545. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Arun kumar Krishnan, Alejandro Roman, Malgorzata Swider, Samuel G Jacobson, Artur V Cideciyan; Macular rod function in retinitis pigmentosa (RP): Comparison of scotopic microperimeter to modified Humphrey field analyzer. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):3545.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate validity and reliability of macular rod photoreceptor function estimated with a retina-tracking microperimeter in dark-adapted eyes of patients with RP.

Methods : Twenty-two eyes of eleven patients (ages:7–66 yrs) with RP, and five eyes of five normal subjects (ages:22–55 yrs) were included. Dark-adapted chromatic perimetry (DACP) was performed with a modified Humphrey field analyzer (mHFA) in dilated eyes. Monochromatic mHFA stimuli were 500 nm blue and 650 nm red with 200 ms duration and 1.7 deg diameter. In addition, MP-1S microperimeter was used to obtain sensitivities to broad-band blue stimuli filtered through 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 ND to expand the effective dynamic range from 20 dB to 60 dB. Test locations were along the two principal meridians at eccentricities of 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 deg. Sensitivity loss (SL) was defined as the difference from the average normal value at each locus. mHFA results were used to censor those locations that showed cone mediation or greater than 30 dB of rod sensitivity loss. In addition, loci near transitions to deep scotomas (papillary boundary or retinal degeneration) were censored to allow a fair comparison between free-viewing mHFA and retina-tracking MP-1S results. All RP eyes were evaluated similarly with both methods during two visits separated by 6 months.

Results : Normal effective MP-1S sensitivities with blue stimuli were 43.5±1.0 dB (mean±s.d.). In RP patients, after censoring, there were 241 evaluable loci. The range of SL was 2.2 to 30.2 dB for mHFA and 2.5 to 38.5 dB for MP-1S, respectively. SL estimates obtained with MP-1S were highly correlated (r = 0.81) with those obtained with mHFA; the relationship could be explained well by a line with an offset of 3.9 dB and a slope of 0.93. Assuming no disease progression during the 6-month interval, 95% coefficient of repeatability was 5.96 dB for mHFA and 7.34 dB for MP-1S, respectively. There was no evidence of a relationship of variability with mean sensitivity.

Conclusions : In a macular annulus extending from 6 to 14 degrees, rod sensitivity losses with the scotopic microperimeter MP-1S closely track those of the mHFA – long-standing gold-standard for DACP in RP patients. There is a tendency for MP-1S losses to be slightly larger and more variable than those of mHFA.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×