Optometry and Vision Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemGenetics of reticular pseudodrusen in age-related macular degeneration(CELL PRESS, 2022-04)Reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) are subretinal deposits and when observed with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) form a distinct phenotype, often associated with late-stage disease. To date, RPD genetic risk-associations overlap six well-established AMD-risk regions. Determining RPD-specific underlying genetic causes by utilising adequate imaging methods should improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of RPD.
-
ItemReticular pseudodrusen: A critical phenotype in age-related macular degeneration(PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD, 2022-05)Reticular pseudodrusen (RPD), or subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD), refer to distinct lesions that occur in the subretinal space. Over the past three decades, their presence in association with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has become increasingly recognized, especially as RPD have become more easily distinguished with newer clinical imaging modalities. There is also an increasing appreciation that RPD appear to be a critical AMD phenotype, where understanding their pathogenesis will provide further insights into the processes driving vision loss in AMD. However, key barriers to understanding the current evidence related to the independent impact of RPD include the heterogeneity in defining their presence, and failure to account for the confounding impact of the concurrent presence and severity of AMD pathology. This review thus critically discusses the current evidence on the prevalence and clinical significance of RPD and proposes a clinical imaging definition of RPD that will help move the field forward in gathering further key knowledge about this critical phenotype. It also proposes a putative mechanism for RPD formation and how they may drive progression to vision loss in AMD, through examining current evidence and presenting novel findings from preclinical and clinical studies.
-
ItemInvestigating the discrepancy between MAIA and MP-1 microperimetry results(WILEY, 2021-11)PURPOSE: Previous work has suggested that sensitivities measured on the iCare MAIA and Nidek MP-1 microperimeters differ systematically, although it is unclear whether one or both devices are inaccurate. Here, we assess the discrepancy between these two instruments as well as with a rigorous reference standard. METHODS: Fifteen healthy participants underwent visual field testing on the MAIA and MP-1 microperimeters. Results were compared to a reference measure of increment thresholds on a laboratory-based, calibrated computer monitor system using the same background luminance and target size. Discrepancies were assessed as a function of eccentricity along the vertical meridian. Differences in decibels (dB) due to differences in the maximum stimulus luminance between devices were accounted for mathematically. RESULTS: The mean sensitivity measured with the MAIA was <1 dB lower than laboratory-based measures, which was statistically significant but of limited clinical importance. In contrast, the mean sensitivity measured with the MP-1 was >8 dB lower than the laboratory measures. The difference was greater for an eccentric superior retinal location, in contrast to what would be predicted if the discrepancy was due to a ceiling effect caused by the MP-1's limited dynamic range. CONCLUSIONS: While MAIA measurements showed low bias compared with our rigorously determined reference standard, the MP-1 showed large discrepancies that could not be explained purely by the limited dynamic range of the instrument. MAIA and MP-1 sensitivity values cannot be compared directly, and caution is advised when assessing absolute sensitivities or eccentricity effects in the extensive MP-1 literature.