Central and Peripheral Visual Sensitivity Assessment in Low to Moderate Myopia

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MSc in optometry, Department of optometry, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Optometry, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor of ophthalmology, Farabi Ophthalmology Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the correlation between peripheral and central visual sensitivity threshold and myopia in mild and moderate myopic eyes using Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA).
Methods:
Twenty-nine subjects (58 eyes) with a mean refractive error of -2.98±1.2 D have undergone perimeric evaluation using peripheral 60-4 strategy in Humphrey device. The visual field was divided into three isopter rings: 30-40, 40-50 and 50-60 degrees. In each ring, the mean threshold was compared between the two myopic groups. Foveal thresholds were also measured and compared between groups.
Results:
In comparison between the mild and moderate myopic groups, there were not any significant differences in 30-40 ring (p=0.42), 40-50 ring (p=0.45) and 50-60 ring (p=0.35). However, a significant but negative correlation was found between foveal threshold and myopia (r=-0.33, p=0.01)
Conclusion:
Lack of any correlation between myopia and peripheral sensitivity threshold demonstrates that peripheral visual field is not a variable parameter in myopia studies. Further studies and in larger scales are recommended.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Pan C-W, Ramamurthy D, Saw S-M. Worldwide prevalence and risk factors for myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom 2012; 32(1): 3–16.
  2. Global initiative for the elimination of avoidable blindness: action plan 2006-2011. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
  3. Van ALPHEN G. On emmetropia and ametropia. Opt Acta (Lond). 1961; 142 (Suppl):1–92.
  4. Dirani M, Chamberlain M, Garoufalis P, Chen C, Guymer RH, Baird PN. Refractive errors in twin studies. Twin Res Hum Genet Off J Int Soc Twin Stud 2006; 9(4): 566–72.
  5. Wong TY, Foster PJ, Johnson GJ, Seah SKL. Education, socioeconomic status, and ocular dimensions in Chinese adults: the Tanjong Pagar Survey. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86(9):963-8.
  6. Chang RT, Singh K. Myopia and glaucoma: diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2013; 24(2):96-101.
  7. Hsu W-M, Cheng C-Y, Liu J-H, Tsai S-Y, Chou P. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in an elderly Chinese population in Taiwan: the Shihpai Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2004; 111 (1): 62-9.
  8. Wang Y-Z, Thibos LN, Bradley A. Effects of refractive error on detection acuity and resolution acuity in peripheral vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38(10): 2134-43.
  9. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci off Publ Am Acad Optom.- 1997; 74(6): 367-75.
  10. Harris WF. Yves Le Grand and the dioptric power matrix. Afr Vis Eye Health [Internet]. 2015 Mar 26[cited 2015 Aug 11]; 74(1). Available from: http:// avehjournal.org/index.php/aveh/article/view 11.
  11. Maduka Okafor FC, Okoye OI, Eze BI. Myopia: a review of literature. Niger J Med J Natl Assoc Resid Dr Niger 2009; 18(2):134-8.
  12. Rudnicka AR, Edgar DF. Automated static perimetry in myopes with peripapillary crescents--Part I. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom 1995; 15(5): 409-12.
  13. Park HJ, Youn DH. Quantitative analysis of changes of automated perimetric thresholds after pupillary dilation and induced myopia in normal subjects. Korean J Ophthalmol KJO 1994; 8(2): 53-60.
  14. Berezina TL, Khouri AS, Kolomeyer AM, Clancy PS, Fechtner RD. Peripheral visual field thresholds using Humphrey Field Analyzer program 60-4 in normal eyes. Eur J Ophthalmol 2011; 21(4): 415-21. 

 

Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 5, Issue 3
October 2016
Pages 18-23

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics