Visual field defects following different resective procedures for mesiotemporal lobe epilepsy.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most common side effects of mesiotemporal lobe resection in patients with medically intractable epilepsy are visual field defects (VFD). While peripheral defects usually remain unnoticed by patients, extended VFD influence daily life activities and can, in particular, affect driving regulations. This study had been designed to evaluate frequency and extent of VFD following different surgical approaches to the mesiotemporal area with respect to the ability to drive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study comprises a consecutive series of 366 patients operated at the Epilepsy Center in Freiburg for intractable mesiotemporal lobe epilepsy from 1998 to 2016. The following procedures were performed: standard anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL: n=134; 37%), anterior temporal or keyhole resection (KH: n=53; 15%), and selective amygdalohippocampectomy via the transsylvian (tsAHE: n=145; 40%) and the subtemporal (ssAHE: n=34; 9%) approach. Frequency and extent of postoperative VFD were evaluated in relation to different surgical procedures. According to the German driving guidelines, postoperative VFD were classified as driving-relevant VFD with the involvement of absolute, homonymous central scotoma within 20° and driving-irrelevant VFD with either none or exclusively minor VFD sparing the center. RESULTS: Postoperative visual field examinations were available in 276 of 366 cases. Postoperative VFD were observed in 202 of 276 patients (73%) and were found to be driving-relevant in 133 of 276 patients (48%), whereas 69 patients (25%) showed VFD irrelevant for driving. Visual field defects were significantly less likely following ssAHE compared with other temporal resections, and if present, they were less frequently driving-relevant (p<0.05), irrespective of the side of surgery. CONCLUSION: Subtemporal sAHE (ssAHE) caused significantly less frequently and less severely driving-relevant VFD compared with all other approaches to the temporal lobe, irrespective of the side of surgery.

Marked dissociation of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity even in normal observers.

AIM: Although contrast vision is not routinely tested, it is important: for instance, it predicts traffic incidents better than visual acuity. Mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS) testing approximates low-lighting conditions but entails dark adaptation, which can disrupt clinical routine. In receptor-specific diseases, a dissociation of photopic and mesopic sensitivity would be expected, but can photopic CS act as a surrogate measure for mesopic CS, at least for screening purposes? METHODS: Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities were studied in three groups: 47 normal subjects, 23 subjects with glaucoma, and three subjects with cataract. Twenty-eight of the normal subjects were additionally tested with artificial blur. Photopic contrast sensitivity was assessed with both the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) and the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Charts. Mesopic contrast sensitivity, without and with glare, was measured with the Mesoptometer IIb. Coefficients of repeatability and limits of agreement were calculated for all tests. RESULTS: Test-retest limits of agreement were ± 0.17 logCS for Mars, ± 0.21 logCS for FrACT, and ±0.20 logCS / ± 0.14 logCS for Mesoptometer IIb without and with glare, respectively. In terms of inter-test comparison, Mars and FrACT largely agreed, except for ceiling effects in the Mars test. While mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivities correlate significantly (r  = 0.51, p < 0.01), only 27 % of the variance is in common. In particular, subjects with high photopic results may be nearly as likely to have low as well as high mesopic results. CONCLUSIONS: The photopic contrast sensitivity tests assessed here cannot serve as surrogate measures for current mesopic contrast sensitivity tests. Low photopic CS predicts low mesopic CS, but with normal photopic CS, mesopic CS can be normal or pathologic.