Purpose: To evaluate differences in reading performance and contrast sensitivity on patients with drusen maculopathy and subretinal fibrosis after CNV (choroidal neovascularisation). Methods: 136 patients (60 with dru...Purpose: To evaluate differences in reading performance and contrast sensitivity on patients with drusen maculopathy and subretinal fibrosis after CNV (choroidal neovascularisation). Methods: 136 patients (60 with drusen (D), 76 with fibrosis (F)) were studied. Patients were classified according to type of maculopathy and best-corrected visual acuity into groups D1 and F1 (LogMAR 0.2- 0.4), groups D2 and F2 (LogMAR>0.4- 0.7), and group F3 (LogMAR>0.7- 1.3). Reading acuity (in LogRAD) and speed were examined with the Radner Reading charts and compared to the reading speed measured with the long paragraphs of the Zuercher Reading Test. Contrast sensitivity was measured with Pelli-Robson charts. Results: The patients’ distance visual acuity was comparable between the drusen and fibrotic CNV groups (D1 versus F1, D2 versus F2). The reading acuity of the corresponding groups D1 and F1 was also comparable, but F2 patients showed a statistically lower reading acuity than D2 patients (P=0.03). All reading speed measurements of the groups F1 and F2 were significantly worse than those of the corresponding groups D1 and D2 (P-values: 0.0005- 0.02). The correlation of reading speed between the Radner and Zuercher texts was very high (r=0.73- 0.94). The contrast sensitivity was significantly lower in all groups compared with group D1 (P<0.001), but comparable for groups F1, F2, and F3. Conclusions: Despite comparable results in distance visual acuity, patients with subretinal fibrosis after CNV had a greater reduction in reading ability than the patients with drusen. The distance visual acuity measurements alone, therefore, underestimate the real-life conditions and impact of AMD.展开更多
文摘Purpose: To evaluate differences in reading performance and contrast sensitivity on patients with drusen maculopathy and subretinal fibrosis after CNV (choroidal neovascularisation). Methods: 136 patients (60 with drusen (D), 76 with fibrosis (F)) were studied. Patients were classified according to type of maculopathy and best-corrected visual acuity into groups D1 and F1 (LogMAR 0.2- 0.4), groups D2 and F2 (LogMAR>0.4- 0.7), and group F3 (LogMAR>0.7- 1.3). Reading acuity (in LogRAD) and speed were examined with the Radner Reading charts and compared to the reading speed measured with the long paragraphs of the Zuercher Reading Test. Contrast sensitivity was measured with Pelli-Robson charts. Results: The patients’ distance visual acuity was comparable between the drusen and fibrotic CNV groups (D1 versus F1, D2 versus F2). The reading acuity of the corresponding groups D1 and F1 was also comparable, but F2 patients showed a statistically lower reading acuity than D2 patients (P=0.03). All reading speed measurements of the groups F1 and F2 were significantly worse than those of the corresponding groups D1 and D2 (P-values: 0.0005- 0.02). The correlation of reading speed between the Radner and Zuercher texts was very high (r=0.73- 0.94). The contrast sensitivity was significantly lower in all groups compared with group D1 (P<0.001), but comparable for groups F1, F2, and F3. Conclusions: Despite comparable results in distance visual acuity, patients with subretinal fibrosis after CNV had a greater reduction in reading ability than the patients with drusen. The distance visual acuity measurements alone, therefore, underestimate the real-life conditions and impact of AMD.
