Microperimetry and clinical practice: An evidence-based review

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 48, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 350-357

  Markowitz, Samuel N ^a   Reyes, Sophia V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EYE MOVEMENT CONTROL; EYE SURGERY; EYE TRACKING; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; LIGHT; LOW VISION; MICROPERIMETRY; PREFERRED RETINAL LOCI; RETINA MACULOPATHY; REVIEW; SCOTOMA; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; RETINA; RETINAL DYSTROPHIES; SCOTOMA; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84888333390     PISSN: 00084182     EISSN: 17153360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2012.03.004     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Shima N, Markowitz SN, Reyes SV. The concept of a functional retinal locus in age-related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010, 45;62-6.
2. Markowitz SN. Principles of modern low vision rehabilitation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2006;41: 289-312.
3. Markowitz SN. Visual function and glaucoma, Ophthalmology. 2011; 118: 2528-9.
4. Lee K, Markowitz SN. Effective scotoma size in age-related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010;45: 393-8.
5. Markowitz SN, Aleykina N.The relationship between scotoma displacement and PRLs in low vision patients with AMD. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010;45: 58-61.
6. Ozturk F, Yavas GF, Küsbeci T, et al. A comparison among Humphrey field analyzer, micro-perimetry, and Heidelberg retinal tomograph in the evaluation of macula in primary open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2008;17: 118-21.
7. Lima VC, Prata TS, De Moraes CG, et al. A comparison between mi-croperimetry and standard achromatic of the central visual field in eyes with glaucomatous paracentral visual-field defects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94: 64-7.
8. Doss LR, Doss L, Coleman AL. Fixation stability during perimetry in advanced glaucoma. ARVO poster 5486/A287. 2011.
9. Fletcher DC, Schuchard RA. Preferred retinal loci relationship to macular sco-tomas in low-vision population. Ophthalmology. 1997;104: 632-8.
10. Cheung SH, Legge GE. Functional and cortical adaptations in central vision loss. Vis Neurosci. 2005;22: 187-201.
11. Crossland MD, Engel SA, Legge GE. The preferred retinal locus in macular disease: Toward a consensus definition. Retina. 2011;31: 2109-14.
12. Lei H, Schuchard RA. Using two preferred retinal loci for different lighting conditions in patients with central scotomas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38: 1812-8.
13. Markowitz SN. Functional retinal locus rather than multiple PRLs? [letter to the editor]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1191.
14. Tarita-Nistor L, González EG, Markowitz SN, Steinbach MJ. Fixation characteristics of patients with macular degeneration recorded with the MP-1 microperimeter. Retina. 2008;28: 125-33.
15. Messias A, Reinhard J, Velasco e Cruz AA, et al. Eccentric fixation in Stargardt's disease assessed by Tübingen perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48: 5815-22.
16. Timberlake GT, Wyman D, Skavenski AA, Steinman RM. The oculomotor error signal in the fovea. Vision Res. 1972;12: 1059-64.
17. White JM, Bedell HE. The oculomotor reference in humans with bilateral macula disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31: 1149-61.
18. Tarita-Nistor L, Brent MH, Steinbach MJ, González, EG. Fixation stability during binocular viewing in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 1887-93.
19. González EG, Tarita-Nistor L, Mandelcorn ED, et al. Fixation control before and after treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 4208-13.
20. Tarita-Nistor L, González EG, Mandelcorn MS, et al. Fixation stability, fixation location, and visual acuity after successful macular hole surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50: 84-9.
21. Orzalesi N, Miglior S, Lonati C, Rosetti L. Microperimetry of localized nerve fiber layer defects. Vision Res. 1998;38: 763-71.
22. Kameda T, Tanabe T, Hangai M, et al. Fixation behavior in advanced stage glaucoma assessed by the microperimeter MP-1.JpnJ Ophthalmol. 2009;53: 580-7.
23. Yodoi Y, Tsujikawa A, Kameda T, et al. Central retinal sensitivity measured with the microperimeter 1 after photodynamic therapy for polyp-oidal choroidal vasculopathy. AmJ Ophthalmol. 2007;143: 984-94.
24. Pearce E, Sivaprasad S, Chong NV. Comparing fixation location and stability in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration treated with or without ranibizumab. Eye. 2011;25: 149-53.
25. Ozdemir H, Karacorlu SA, Senturk F, et al. Assessment of macular function by microperimetry in unilateral resolved central serous chori-oretinopathy. Eye. 2008;22: 204-8.
26. Markowitz SN, Reyes SV, Li Sheng. The use of prisms for vision rehabilitation after macular function loss: An evidence-based study. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2012; in press.
27. Seiple W, Grant P, Szlyk J. Reading rehabilitation of individuals with AMD: Relative effectiveness of treating approaches. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 2938-44.
28. Tarita-Nistor L, González EG, Markowitz SN, Steinbach MJ. Plasticity of fixation in patients with central vision loss. Vis Neurosci. 2009;26: 487-94.
29. Markowitz SN. Functional vision: The most important outcome measure for all vision rehabilitation interventions. [editorial]. CanJ Ophthalmol. 2011;46: 377-8.