Glare and Mobility Performance in Glaucoma: A Pilot Study.
Journal
Journal of glaucoma
ISSN: 1536-481X
Titre abrégé: J Glaucoma
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9300903
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2021
01 11 2021
Historique:
received:
22
02
2021
accepted:
14
08
2021
pubmed:
11
9
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
10
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Glare disability affects patients with moderate and severe glaucoma. Under glare conditions, mobility performances of glaucoma patients are reduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate glare disability and its impact on mobility and orientation in glaucoma patients. Twenty-two glaucoma patients and 12 age-matched control subjects were included. All patients underwent a clinical evaluation of visual function and halo size measurements to determine glare disability with a glare score (GS) of the best eye and worse eye. Mobility was evaluated by 4 mobility courses on an artificial street (StreetLab) under photopic conditions (P) and mesopic conditions with an additional light source in front of the patient to mimic dazzling conditions (M+G). Mobility time, mobility incidents, trajectory segmentation, distance traveled, preferred walking speed on trial (WS) and percentage of preferred walking speed (PPWS) were recorded, and the Nasa task load index (Nasa-TLX) was evaluated. GS of the worse eye and GS of the best eye were significantly higher in glaucoma patients than in the control group (P=0.001 and 0.003). It was significantly different between moderate glaucoma patients and controls (P=0.001 and 0.010, respectively) and between severe glaucoma patients and controls (P=0.049 and 0.016). In locomotion tasks, comparing performance under M+G and P conditions, mobility performance was significantly different concerning mobility time (P=0.010), distance traveled (P=0.008), WS (P=0.007), PPWS (P=0.006), and Nasa-TLX (P=0.017) in the glaucoma group. Under M+G lighting conditions, mobility performance for glaucoma patients was significantly worse than controls with regard to WS (P=0.038), PPWS (P=0.0498), mobility time (P=0.046), and Nasa-TLX (P=0.006). Glare disability was observed in patients with moderate and severe glaucoma and had an impact on their mobility performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34506355
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001936
pii: 00061198-202111000-00003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
963-970Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:844–851.
Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–2090.
Ramrattan RS, Wolfs RC, Panda-Jonas S, et al. Prevalence and causes of visual field loss in the elderly and associations with impairment in daily functioning: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1788–1794.
Nelson P, Aspinall P, O’Brien C. Patients’ perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:546–552.
Janz NK, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al. Evaluating clinical change and visual function concerns in drivers and non-drivers with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:1718–1725.
Vos JJ. Reflections on glare: Light Res Technol. 2016.
Franssen L, Coppens JE. Straylight at the Retina. Amsterdam: Scattered Papers; 2007.
Palomo-Álvarez C, Puell MC. Capacity of straylight and disk halo size to diagnose cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:2069–2074.
Adrian J, Hue D, Porte S, et al. Validation of the driver ecological glare test. J Safety Res. 2020;72:139–143.
Rubin GS, Adamsons IA, Stark WJ. Comparison of acuity, contrast sensitivity, and disability glare before and after cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:56–61.
Schmitz S, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1109–1112.
Turano KA, Massof RW, Quigley HA. A self-assessment instrument designed for measuring independent mobility in RP patients: generalizability to glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2874–2881.
Yonge AV, Swenor BK, Miller R, et al. Quantifying fall-related hazards in the homes of persons with glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:562–571.
Enoch J, Jones L, Taylor DJ, et al. How do different lighting conditions affect the vision and quality of life of people with glaucoma? A systematic review. Eye Lond Engl. 2020;34:138–154.
Aslam TM, Haider D, Murray IJ. Principles of disability glare measurement: an ophthalmological perspective. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:354–360.
Puell MC, Pérez-Carrasco MJ, Palomo-Alvarez C, et al. Relationship between halo size and forward light scatter. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:1389–1392.
Lombardi M, Zenouda A, Azoulay-Sebban L, et al. Correlation between visual function and simulated performance of daily living activities in glaucomatous patients. J Glaucoma. 2018;27:1017–1024.
Azoulay-Sebban L, Zhao Z, Zenouda A, et al. Correlations between Subjective Evaluation of Quality of Life, Visual Field Loss and Performance in Simulated Activities of Daily Living in Glaucoma Patients. J Glaucoma. 2020;29:970–974.
Susanna R Jr, Vessani RM. Staging glaucoma patient: why and how? Open Ophthalmol J. 2009;3:59–64.
Puell MC, Pérez-Carrasco MJ, Barrio A, et al. Normal values for the size of a halo produced by a glare source. J Refract Surg. 2013;29:618–622.
Ramer U. An iterative procedure for the polygonal approximation of plane curves. Comput Vis Graph Image Process. 1972;1:244–256.
Douglas DH, Peucker TK. Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. Cartographica . 1973;10:112–122.
Soong GP, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Brown B. Preferred walking speed for assessment of mobility performance: sighted guide versus non-sighted guide techniques. Clin Exp Optom. 2000;83:279–282.
Clark-Carter DD, Heyes AD, Howarth CI. The efficiency and walking speed of visually impaired people. Ergonomics. 1986;29:779–789.
Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, et al. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:139–150.
Vos JJ. On the cause of disability glare and its dependence on glare angle, age and ocular pigmentation. Clin Exp Optom. 2003;86:363–370.
Walls GL, Judd HD. The intra-ocular colour-filters of vertebrates. Br J Ophthalmol. 1933;17:641–675.
Stringham JM, Hammond BR. The glare hypothesis of macular pigment function. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:859–864.
Hammond BR, Fletcher LM, Elliott JG. Glare disability, photostress recovery, and chromatic contrast: relation to macular pigment and serum lutein and zeaxanthin. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:476–481.
Igras E, Loughman J, Ratzlaff M, et al. Evidence of lower macular pigment optical density in chronic open angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:994–998.
Siah WF, O’Brien C, Loughman JJ. Macular pigment is associated with glare-affected visual function and central visual field loss in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:929–935.
Gamlin PDR, McDougal DH, Pokorny J, et al. Human and macaque pupil responses driven by melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells. Vision Res. 2007;47:946–954.
McDougal DH, Gamlin PD. The influence of intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells on the spectral sensitivity and response dynamics of the human pupillary light reflex. Vision Res. 2010;50:72–87.
Feigl B, Mattes D, Thomas R, et al. Intrinsically photosensitive (melanopsin) retinal ganglion cell function in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:4362–4367.
Loewenfeld IE, Lowenstein O. The Pupil: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Applications. Detroit: Iowa State University Press; Wayne State University Press; 1993.
Münch M, Léon L, Collomb S, et al. Comparison of acute non-visual bright light responses in patients with optic nerve disease, glaucoma and healthy controls. Sci Rep. 2015;5:15185.
Pérez-Rico C, de la Villa P, Arribas-Gómez I, et al. Evaluation of functional integrity of the retinohypothalamic tract in advanced glaucoma using multifocal electroretinography and light-induced melatonin suppression. Exp Eye Res. 2010;91:578–583.
Vidal-Sanz M, Valiente-Soriano FJ, Ortín-Martínez A, et al. Retinal neurodegeneration in experimental glaucoma. Prog Brain Res. 2015;220:1–35.
Wang H, Lu Q, Wang N, et al. Loss of melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells in a rat glaucoma model. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008;121:1015–1019.
Van Den Berg TJTP, Van Rijn LJR, Michael R, et al. Straylight effects with aging and lens extraction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:358–363.
Van den Berg TJ. Analysis of intraocular straylight, especially in relation to age. Optom Vis Sci. 1995;72:52–59.
Labbé A, Terry O, Brasnu E, et al. Tear film osmolarity in patients treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Cornea. 2012;31:994–999.
Leung EW, Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Prevalence of ocular surface disease in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:350–355.
Koh S, Maeda N, Ikeda C, et al. The effect of ocular surface regularity on contrast sensitivity and straylight in dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:2647–2651.
Sherwood MB, Garcia-Siekavizza A, Meltzer MI, et al. Glaucoma’s impact on quality of life and its relation to clinical indicators. A pilot study. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:561–566.
Van den Berg TJTP, (René) van Rijn LJ, Kaper-Bongers R, et al. Disability glare in the aging eye. Assessment and impact on driving. J Optom. 2009;2:112–118.
Goldberg I, Clement CI, Chiang TH, et al. Assessing quality of life in patients with glaucoma using the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:6–12.
Steen R, Whitaker D, Elliott DB, et al. Effect of filters on disability glare. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1993;13:371–376.
Mainster MA, Turner PL. Blue-blocking IOLs vs. short-wavelength visible light: hypothesis-based vs. evidence-based medical practice. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1–2.
Mainster MA, Turner PL. Blue-blocking IOLs decrease photoreception without providing significant photoprotection. Surv Ophthalmol. 2010;55:272–289.