To establish normative values of retinal sensitivity and parameters describing the fixation pattern using macular analyzer integrity assessment (MAIA) microperimetry (Centervue, Padova, Italy) in adults and children.
Methods
A sample of 237 eyes of 237 healthy subjects aged between 10 and 70 years (mean age 30.63 ± 16.23 years) was evaluated using the MAIA microperimeter. The following parameters provided by the MAIA device were evaluated: average threshold (AT), macular integrity, fixation indexes (P1% and P2%), bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) for 95% and 63% of points, and horizontal (H) and vertical (V) axes of the ellipse of fixation. Differences between different age-related groups were evaluated. Correlation of microperimetric parameters with age was also assessed.
Results
Median retinal sensitivity of the overall sample was 32.90 dB (interquartile range 1.80 dB). Median P1 and P2 values were 98.00% (6.00) and 100.00% (1.00), respectively. Median BCEA for 95% and 63% of points were 2.40°2 (4.50) and 0.30°2 (0.50), respectively. Median H and V were 0.90° (0.80) and 0.90° (0.70), respectively. Age was significantly correlated with the following parameters in subjects from 21 to 70 years of age (p<0.01): AT (rho -0.47), P1 (rho -0.37), BCEA95 (rho 0.43), BCEA63 (rho 0.42), H (rho 0.43), and V (rho 0.40).
Conclusions
Retinal sensitivity in healthy eyes tends to decrease with age as well as the stability of the pattern of fixation. A normative database in terms of retinal sensitivity threshold and fixation performance can be established in this type of eyes.
MarkowitzSNReyesSVMicroperimetry and clinical practice: an evidence-based review.Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(5):350–357.
2.
RohrschneiderKBültmannSSpringerCUse of fundus perimetry (microperimetry) to quantify macular sensitivity.Prog Retin Eye Res. 2008;27(5):536–548.
3.
LonghinEConventoEPilottoEet al.Static and dynamic retinal fixation stability in microperimetry.Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(5):375–380.
4.
ParodiMBTrioloGMoralesMet al.MP1 and MAIA fundus perimetry in healthy subjects and patients affected by retinal dystrophies.Retina. 2015;35(8):1662–1669.
5.
VingoloEMSalvatoreSDomanicoDSpadeaLNebbiosoMVisual rehabilitation in patients with myopic maculopathy: our experience.Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(5):438–442.
6.
GrengaPLTrabuccoPMeduriAFragiottaSVingoloEMMicroperimetric biofeedback in a patient with oculocutaneous albinism.Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(5):e105–e107.
7.
VerboschiFDomanicoDNebbiosoMCorradettiGZaccaria ScalinciSVingoloEMNew trends in visual rehabilitation with MP-1 microperimeter biofeedback: optic neural dysfunction.Funct Neurol. 2013;28(4):285–291.
8.
VujosevicSSmolekMKLebowKANotarobertoNPallikarisACascianoMDetection of macular function changes in early (AREDS 2) and intermediate (AREDS 3) age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmologica. 2011;225(3):155–160.
9.
Tarita-NistorLGonzálezEGMarkowitzSNSteinbachMJFixation characteristics of patients with macular degeneration recorded with the mp-1 microperimeter.Retina. 2008;28(1):125–133.
10.
WuZAytonLNGuymerRHLuuCDComparison between multifocal electroretinography and microperimetry in age-related macular degeneration.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(10):6431–6439.
11.
ParravanoMOddoneFBoccassiniBet al.Functional and structural assessment of lamellar macular holes.Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(3):291–296.
12.
ChungHWYunCMKimJTKimS-WOhJHuhKRetinal sensitivity assessed by microperimetry and corresponding retinal structure and thickness in resolved central serous chorioretinopathy.Eye (Lond). 2014;28(10):1223–1230.
13.
HuangPShiYWangXZhangSS-MZhangCUse of microperimetry to compare macular light sensitivity in eyes with open-angle and angle-closure glaucoma.Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2012;56(2):138–144.
14.
SatoSHirookaKBabaTTenkumoKNittaEShiragaFCorrelation between the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness measured with cirrus HD-OCT and macular visual field sensitivity measured with microperimetry.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(4):3046–3051.
15.
SalvatoreSFishmanGAMcAnanyJJGeneadMAAssociation of dark-adapted visual function with retinal structural changes in patients with Stargardt disease.Retina. 2014;34(5):989–995.
16.
LupoSGrengaPLVingoloEMFourier-domain optical coherence tomography and microperimetry findings in retinitis pigmentosa.Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(1):106–111.
17.
Molina-MartínAPiñeroDPPérez-CambrodíRJDecreased perifoveal sensitivity detected by microperimetry in patients using hydroxychloroquine and without visual field and fundoscopic anomalies.J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:437271.
18.
FingerRPCharbel IssaPFimmersRHolzFGRubinGSSchollHPNReading performance is reduced by parafoveal scotomas in patients with macular telangiectasia type 2.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(3):1366–1370.
19.
Martínez-CostaLVictoria IbañezMMurcia-BelloCet al.Use of microperimetry to evaluate hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine retinal toxicity.Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(5):400–405.
20.
Molina-MartínAPiñeroDPPérez-CambrodíRJReliability and intersession agreement of microperimetric and fixation measurements obtained with a new microperimeter in normal eyes.Curr Eye Res. 2016;41(3):400–409.
21.
DennissJAstleATCentral perimetric sensitivity estimates are directly influenced by the fixation target.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016;36(4):453–458.
22.
SupriyaDShwethaMKiran AnupamaKKummelil MathewKBerendschotTTJMSchoutenJSAGet al.Structural and function correlation of cone packing utilizing adaptive optics and microperimetry.Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:968672.
23.
RohrschneiderKBeckerMSchumacherNFendrichTVölckerHENormal values for fundus perimetry with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope.Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(1):52–58.
24.
MidenaEVujosevicSCavarzeranFGroup MS; Microperimetry Study Group.Normal values for fundus perimetry with the microperimeter MP1. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(8):1571–1576, 1576.e1.
25.
ShahVAChalamKVValues for macular perimetry using the MP-1 microperimeter in normal subjects.Ophthalmic Res. 2009;41(1):9–13.
26.
IsmailSASharanjeet-Kaur, Mutalib HA, Ngah NF.Macular retinal sensitivity using MP-1 in healthy Malaysian subjects of different ages. J Opt. 2015;8(4):266–272.
27.
GellaLNittalaMGRamanRRetinal sensitivity in healthy Indians using microperimeter.Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62(3):284–286.
28.
ZhouJLiuWLiXLiQHaoJWangX-L[Macular retinal function detected by MP-1 microperimetry in normal subjects of middle and old age].Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2011;47(1):35–38.
29.
SabatesFNVincentRDKoulenPSabatesNRGallimoreGNormative data set identifying properties of the macula across age groups: integration of visual function and retinal structure with microperimetry and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.Retina. 2011;31(7):1294–1302.
30.
AnastasakisAMcAnanyJJFishmanGASeipleWHClinical value, normative retinal sensitivity values, and intrasession repeatability using a combined spectral domain optical coherence tomography/scanning laser ophthalmoscope microperimeter.Eye (Lond). 2011;25(2):245–251.
31.
CesareoMMancaDCiuffolettiEet al.Evaluation of fixation stability using different targets with the MP1 microperimeter.Int Ophthalmol. 2015;35(1):11–17.
32.
TsePUSheinbergDLLogothetisNKFixational eye movements are not affected by abrupt onsets that capture attention.Vision Res. 2002;42(13):1663–1669.
33.
MolinaAPérez-CambrodíRJRuiz-FortesPLariaCPiñeroDPUtility of microperimetry in nystagmus: a case report.Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48(5):e103–e105.
34.
Molina-MartínAPiñeroDPPérez-CambrodíRJFixation pattern analysis with microperimetry in nystagmus patients.Can J Ophthalmol. 2015;50(6):413–421.
35.
BoonMYSuttleCMHenryBIDainSJDynamics of chromatic visual system processing differ in complexity between children and adults.J Vis. 2009;9(6):22.1–17.
36.
ConnerIPSharmaSLemieuxSKMendolaJDRetinotopic organization in children measured with fMRI.J Vis. 2004;4(6):509–523.
37.
GieddJNStructural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1021(1):77–85.
