A modified protocol for the assessment of visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The assessment of visual function for retinitis pigmentosa routinely includes electroretinography, visual acuity and visual field-testing. Patients with retinitis pigmentosa sometimes complain of changes in visual function, which are not paralleled by routine eye tests. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine which visual function test or group of tests can predict reliably perceived visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa METHODS: Subjects with progressive retinitis pigmentosa are recruited from the Ocular genetics program of The Hospital for Sick Children and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto. Subjects will be tested four times over the over the period of one year. On each visit they undergo following tests- 1) Central visual acuity (VA) using the crowded logMAR acuity chart, 2) Contrast Sensitivity (CS) using Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart, 3) Visual field test (VF) using Humphrey (10-2), 4) Color vision using Mollon-Reffin 'minimalist' test and 5) Subjective visual function questionnaire testing near and global perceived visual function respectively. RESULTS: Phase I (baseline and visit I measure) results are reported. Total of sixty-eight patients with mean age of 41 years, age range of twelve to sixty seven were tested. Of these thirty-one were males and thirty-seven were females. Repeat testing correlation was high (r>0.8, p<0.05) for all parameters between baseline visit and visit I. The near perceived visual function correlated best with the combination of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. The global perceived visual function correlated best with combination of visual field and visual acuity. Objective measure of central visual function (HVF 10-2) correlated best with contrast sensitivity. DISCUSSION: The addition of contrast sensitivity and Humphrey visual field to routine visual assessment should improve the quality of the longitudinal data of visual function recorded on these patients. Patients will be re- tested at six months and one-year interval. To date of the sixty-eight subjects twenty-seven have returned for their six-month visit (phase II).