Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022
Binocularity Principles of PRL Development in Patients With Macular Disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tarita-Nistor Luminita, Mandelcorn Mark S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We tested the hypothesis that binocularity requirements for correspondence play a role in establishing the preferred retinal locus (PRL) in macular degeneration.
METHODS: Monocular PRL locations in 202 eyes of 101 patients with macular degeneration (79 ± 10 years) were recorded with the MP1 microperimeter. Corresponding PRLs were those with similar polar angle and distance from former fovea in the better eye (BE) and the worse eye (WE).
RESULTS: On average, the PRL in the BE was in the foveal proximity at 1.1 ± 0.99 degrees for 55 patients (foveal-driven PRL) and eccentrically at 6.9 ± 3.4 degrees for 46 patients with central lesions involving the fovea (peripheral-driven PRL). For the foveal-driven PRL group, the PRL in the BE was not affected by the status of the WE. In 100% of cases, the monocular PRL in the WE was in a corresponding location either on functioning retina or onto the lesion, or would fall onto the lesion during binocular viewing. For the peripheral-driven PRL group, the PRL location depended on the lesion size in both eyes to maximize correspondence and/or the function of peripheral vision during binocular viewing. In this group, PRL correspondence status was different for those with equal, unequal, or extensive lesions in both eyes.
CONCLUSIONS: Binocularity requirements for correspondence play an important role in determining the PRL location. We formulated two principles based on whether the BE has foveal sparing (foveal-driven PRL) or central lesions affecting the fovea (peripheral-driven PRL). The PRL should be evaluated in the framework of binocular viewing.
METHODS: Monocular PRL locations in 202 eyes of 101 patients with macular degeneration (79 ± 10 years) were recorded with the MP1 microperimeter. Corresponding PRLs were those with similar polar angle and distance from former fovea in the better eye (BE) and the worse eye (WE).
RESULTS: On average, the PRL in the BE was in the foveal proximity at 1.1 ± 0.99 degrees for 55 patients (foveal-driven PRL) and eccentrically at 6.9 ± 3.4 degrees for 46 patients with central lesions involving the fovea (peripheral-driven PRL). For the foveal-driven PRL group, the PRL in the BE was not affected by the status of the WE. In 100% of cases, the monocular PRL in the WE was in a corresponding location either on functioning retina or onto the lesion, or would fall onto the lesion during binocular viewing. For the peripheral-driven PRL group, the PRL location depended on the lesion size in both eyes to maximize correspondence and/or the function of peripheral vision during binocular viewing. In this group, PRL correspondence status was different for those with equal, unequal, or extensive lesions in both eyes.
CONCLUSIONS: Binocularity requirements for correspondence play an important role in determining the PRL location. We formulated two principles based on whether the BE has foveal sparing (foveal-driven PRL) or central lesions affecting the fovea (peripheral-driven PRL). The PRL should be evaluated in the framework of binocular viewing.