Diferencias interoculares medidas mediante microperimetríacomparativa entre sujetos normales y ambliopes

  1. Ainhoa Molina Martin 1
  2. Rafael José Pérez Cambrodí 2
  3. Amparo Gil Casas 1
  4. David p. Piñero Llorens 2
  1. 1 Fundació Lluís Alcanyís. Universitat de València
  2. 2 Hospital Internacional Medimar, Oftalmar, Alicante,
Revista:
Gaceta de optometría y óptica oftálmica

ISSN: 2173-9366

Año de publicación: 2016

Número: 518

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Gaceta de optometría y óptica oftálmica

Resumen

Objetivo: Analizar mediante microperimetría (MP) las diferencias interoculares que existen en sujetos normales, y comparar estos resultados con los de una muestra de sujetos ambliopes. Métodos: Se midieron mediante MP ambos ojos de una muestra de 237 sujetos normales. Las diferencias interoculares se obtuvieron mediante la resta de los valores de cada ojo para: sensibilidad media (Sm), índices P1 y P2, área de la elipse de fijación (BCEA95 y BCEA63), y diámetro horizontal y vertical de esta elipse (H y V). La diferencia interocular normal se estableció mediante el límite superior del IC del 95% de los individuos. Los resultados obtenidos, son comparados con los de 6 sujetos amblíopes, planteándonos dos hipótesis: el ojo dominante (OD) muestra mejores resultados que el ojo amblíope (OA) y esta diferencia es mayor a la encontrada en normales. Resultados: Las diferencias interoculares encontradas en normales fueron: 1.02 dB para Sm, 4.80% y 1.20% para P1 y P2, 3.30°² y 0.37°² para BCEA95 y BCEA63, 0.37° para H y 0.39° para V. En cuanto a los ambliopes, 5/6 sujetos mostraron mayor Sm en el OD, siendo esta diferencia mayor a la encontrada en normales. El análisis de fijación revela que las diferencias interoculares en ambliopes no difieren de las encontradas en normales. Conclusiones: La Sm se ve afectada en el caso de sujetos con ambliopía, encontrando una diferencia entre ojos mayor a la encontrada en normales. En el caso de la fijación, no se encontraron diferencias más allá de las encontradas en normales.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Markowitz SN, Reyes S V. Microperimetry and clinical practice: An evidence-based review. Can J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2013;48(5):350–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2012.03.004
  • Rohrschneider K, Bültmann S, Springer C. Use of fundus perimetry (microperimetry) to quantify macular sensitivity. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2008;27(5):536–48.
  • Midena E, Pilotto E. Microperimetry. In: Age-Related Macular Degeneration [Internet]. 2013. p. 173–87. Available from: http:// link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-22107-1
  • Acton JH, Greenstein VC. Fundus-driven perimetry ( microperimetry) compared to conventional static automated perimetry : similarities , differences , and clinical applications. Can J Ophthalmol Can d’ophtalmologie [Internet]. Elsevier; 2013;48(5):358–63. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.03.021
  • Longhin E, Convento E, Pilotto E, Bonin G, Vujosevic S, Kotsafti O, et al. Static and dynamic retinal fixation stability in microperimetry.Can J Ophthalmol [Internet]. Elsevier; 2013;48(5):375–80. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.05.021
  • Morales MU, Saker S, Mehta RL, Rubinstein M, Amoaku WM. Preferred retinal locus profile during prolonged fixation attempts. Can J Ophthalmol / J Can d’Ophtalmologie [Internet]. Elsevier;2013;48(5):368–74. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0008418213002639
  • Vujosevic S, Lebow KA, Notaroberto N, Pallikaris A, Casciano M, Smolek MK. Macular Function in Early and Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration : A Screening Approach. In 2010. p. 95.
  • Pilotto E, Benetti E, Convento E, Guidolin F, Longhin E, Parrozzani R, et al. Microperimetry, fixndus autofluorescence, and retinal layer changes in progressing geographic atrophy. Can J Ophthalmol [Internet]. Elsevier; 2013;48(5):386–93. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24093185
  • Tarita-Nistor L, González EG, Markowitz SN, Steinbach MJ. Fixation characteristics of patients with macular degeneration recorded with the mp-1 microperimeter. Retina [Internet]. 2008 Jan [cited 2015 Oct 18];28(1):125–33. Available from: http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 18185148.
  • Molina-Martín A, Piñero DP, Pérez-Cambrodí RJ. Decreased Perifoveal Sensitivity Detected by Microperimetry in Patients Using Hydroxychloroquine and without Visual Field and Fundoscopic Anomalies. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:1–5.
  • Martínez-Costa L, VictoriaIbañez M, Murcia-Bello C, Epifanio I, Verdejo-Gimeno C, Beltrán-Catalán E, et al. Use of microperimetry to evaluate hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine retinal toxicity. Can J Ophthalmol [Internet]. Elsevier; 2013;48(5):400–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.03.018
  • Vingolo EM, Salvatore S, Domanico D, Spadea L, Nebbioso M. Visual rehabilitation in patients with myopic maculopathy: our experience. Can J Ophthalmol [Internet].Elsevier; 2013;48(5):438–42. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24093193\nhttp://ac.els-dn.com/S000841821300358X/1-s2.0-S000841821300358Xm a i n . p d f ? _ t i d = 4 a 5 a e 0 3 a - 2 e d a - 1 1 e 5 - b a 5 5 -00000aacb35d&acdnat= 1437395259_733a9b95c840bfc- 92052cf26ebd7d86b
  • Midena E. Microperimetry in diabetic retinopathy. Saudi J Ophthalmol [Internet]. King Saud University; 2011;25(2):131–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjopt.2011.01.010
  • Yoshida A. Scotoma and Fixation Patterns Using Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope Microperimetry in Patients With Macular Dystrophy. 2001;897–902.
  • Johnson DA. The use of the scanning laser ophthalmoscope in the evaluation of amblyopia (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc [Internet]. 2006 Jan [cited 2015 Aug 26];104:414–36. Available from: http://www. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1809926&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
  • Dickmann A, Petroni S, Perrotta V, Salerni A, Parrilla R, Aliberti S, et al. A morpho-functional study of amblyopic eyes with the use of optical coherence tomography and microperimetry.J AAPOS [Internet]. American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus; 2011 Aug [cited 2015 Aug 26];15(4):338–41. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/21907114
  • Carpineto P, Ciancaglini M, Nubile M, Di Marzio G, Toto L, Di Antonio L, et al. Fixation patterns evaluation by means of MP-1 microperimeter in microstrabismic children treated for unilateral amblyopia. Eur J Ophthalmol [Internet]. Jan [cited 2015 Aug 26];17(6):885–90. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18050112
  • Eom Y, Kim S-H, Kim S-W, Cho Y a. Applicability of scanning laser ophthalmoscopy microperimetry on the fixation patterns of monofixation syndrome. Can J Ophthalmol [Internet]. Elsevier;2013;48(5):413–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/24093189
  • Molina A, Pérez-Cambrodí RJ, Ruiz-Fortes P, Laria C, Piñero DP. Utility of microperimetry in nystagmus: A case report. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(5):103–5.
  • Molina-Martín A, Piñero DP, Pérez-cambrodí RJ. Fixation pattern analysis with microperimetry in nystagmus patients. Can J Ophthalmol Can d’ophtalmologie [Internet].Elsevier; 2015;50(6):413–21. Available from: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2015.07.012
  • Lee S, Jeoung J, Park K, Kim D. Macular Ganglion Cell Imaging Study: Interocular Symmetry of Ganglion Cell–Inner Plexiform Layer Thickness in Normal Healthy Eyes. Am J Ophthalmol [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2015 Feb [cited 2015 Aug 26];159(2):315–23.e2.Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25447118
  • Pekel G, Acer S, Ozbakis F, Yagci R, Sayin N. Macular asymmetry analysis in sighting ocular dominance. Kaohsiung J Med Sci [Internet]. 2014 Oct [cited 2015 Aug 26];30(10):531–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25438685
  • Samarawickrama C, Wang JJ, Huynh SC, Wang XY, Burlutsky G, Stapleton F, et al. Macular thickness, retinal thickness, and optic disk parameters in dominant compared with nondominant eyes. J AAPOS [Internet]. 2009 Apr [cited 2015 Aug 26];13(2):142–7. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1091853108004436
  • Fejes I, Kocsis PB, Benedek G, Janáky M. Interocular Amplitude and Latency Differences of Pattern ERG and Pattern VEP Parameters. Optom Vis Sci [Internet]. 2014 Apr [cited 2015 Aug 26];91(4):472–6. Available from: http://content. wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP: landingpage&an=00006324-201404000-00017
  • Brenton RS, Phelps CD, Rojas P, Woolson RF. Interocular differences of the visual field in normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1986;27(5):799–805.
  • Seiple W, Rosen RB, Castro-Lima V, Garcia PMT. The physics and psychophysics of microperimetry. Optom Vis Sci [Internet]. 2012 Aug [cited 2015 Aug 26];89(8):1182–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820474
  • Pérez-Rico C. Evaluation of Visual Function and Retinal Structure in Adult Amblyopes. Optom Vis… [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 26];92(3):375–83. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2015/03000/Evaluation_of_Visual_ Function_and_Retinal.20.aspx
  • Tugcu B, Araz-Ersan B, Kilic M, Erdogan ET, Yigit U, Karamursel S. The morpho-functional evaluation of retina in amblyopia. Curr Eye Res [Internet]. 2013 Jul [cited 2015 Aug 26];38(7):802–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/23521720
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet