Pradeep Y. Ramulu

Purpose: To determine the importance of various vision parameters to functionality in glaucoma. Methods: Vision was measured using seven parameters: visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), integrated visual field (IVF), area under the log CS function (AULCSF), color vision, stereoacuity, and VA with noise (ViN). Likelihood ratio testing (LRT) determined if the full set of visual parameters significantly explained variability in 10 functional outcomes. For outcomes where the visual contribution was significant, dominance analysis determined the relative importance of the various visual parameters. Results: The analysis included 151 glaucoma patients. Mean age was 70 ± 6.8 years, and 47% were men. Significant visual contributions (LRT P < 0.05) were noted for glaucoma quality of life (GQL-15), reading speed, driving cessation, daily steps, and base of support while walking, but not for fear of falling, balance, gait velocity, stride velocity, and stride length while walking (LRT P > 0.05). The most important parameter (and percent contribution) to vision-explained variability were AULCSF for daily steps (45%), IVF for base of support (35%), VA for reading speed (34%), CS for GQL-15 (30%), and VA for driving cessation (26%). Conclusions: Measures of visual ability are important for several aspects of quality of life and functionality. The most important vision parameter for functionality differs depending on the domain studied. Reading and driving were explained by VA and IVF sensitivity. On the other hand, GQL-15 and daily steps were more heavily influenced by CS and AULCSF, which are rarely performed clinically.

To determine which resident and program characteristics correlate with ophthalmic knowledge, as assessed by resident Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) performance. An online survey was sent in June 2017 to all US ophthalmology residents who took the OKAP in April 2017. The survey response rate was 13.8% (192/1387 residents). The mean respondent age was 30.4 years, and 57.3% were male. The mean [SD] self-reported 2017 OKAP percentile was 61.9 [26.7]. OKAP performance was found to have a significant positive correlation with greater number of hours spent/week studying for the OKAPs (p = 0.007), with use of online question banks (p < 0.001), with review sessions and/or lectures arranged by residency programs (p < 0.001), and with OKAP-specific didactics (p = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, factors most predictive of residents scoring ≥75th percentile were, higher step 1 scores (OR = 2.48, [95% CI: 1.68–3.64, p < 0.001]), presence of incentives (OR = 2.75, [95% CI: 1.16–6.56, p = 0.022]), greater number of hours/week spent studying (OR = 1.09, [95% CI:1.01–1.17, p = 0.026]) and fewer hours spent in research 3 months prior to examination (OR = 1.08, [95% CI: 1.01–1.15, p = 0.020]. Lastly, residents less likely to depend on group study sessions as a learning method tended to score higher (OR = 3.40, [95% CI: 1.16–9.94, p = 0.026]). Programs wishing to improve resident OKAP scores might consider offering incentives, providing effective access to learning content e.g. online question banks, and adjusting the curriculum to highlight OKAP material. Step 1 scores may help educators identify residents who might be at risk of not performing as well on the OKAP.

Purpose: To relate balance measures to visual field (VF) damage from glaucoma. Methods: The OPAL kinematic system measured balance, as root mean square (RMS) sway, on 236 patients with suspect/diagnosed glaucoma. Balance was measured with feet shoulder width apart while standing on a firm/foam surface with eyes opened/closed (Instrumental Clinical Test of Sensory Integration and Balance [ICTSIB] conditions), and eyes open on a firm surface under feet together, semi-tandem, or tandem positions (standing balance conditions). Integrated VF (IVF) sensitivities were calculated by merging right and left eye 24-2 VF data. Results: Mean age was 71 years (range, 57–93) and mean IVF sensitivity was 27.1 dB (normal = 31 dB). Lower IVF sensitivity was associated with greater RMS sway during eyes-open foam-surface testing (β = 0.23 z-score units/5 dB IVF sensitivity decrement, P = 0.001), but not during other ICTSIB conditions. Lower IVF sensitivity also was associated with greater RMS sway during feet together standing balance testing (0.10 z-score units/5 dB IVF sensitivity decrement, P = 0.049), but not during other standing balance conditions. Visual dependence of balance was lower in patients with worse IVF sensitivity (β = −21%/5 dB IVF sensitivity decrement, P < 0.001). Neither superior nor inferior IVF sensitivity consistently predicted balance measures better than measures of overall VF sensitivity. Conclusions: Balance was worse in glaucoma patients with greater VF damage under foam surface testing (designed to inhibit proprioceptive contributions to balance) as well as feet-together firm-surface conditions when somatosensory inputs were available. Translational Relevance: Good balance is essential to avoid unnecessary falls and patients with VF loss from glaucoma may be at higher risk of falls because of poor balance.

Purpose. To assess the impact of glaucoma-related vision loss on measures of out-loud reading, including time to say individual words, interval time between consecutive words, lexical errors, skipped words, and repetitions. Methods. Glaucoma subjects (n = 63) with bilateral visual field loss and glaucoma suspect controls (n = 57) were recorded while reading a standardized passage out loud. A masked evaluator determined the start and end of each recorded word and identified reading errors. Results. Glaucoma subjects demonstrated longer durations to recite individual words (265 vs. 243 ms, P < 0.001), longer intervals between words (154 vs. 124 ms, P < 0.001), and longer word/post-word interval complexes (the time spanned by the word and the interval following the word; 419 vs. 367 ms, P < 0.001) than controls. In multivariable analyses, each 0.1 decrement in log contrast sensitivity (logCS) was associated with a 15.0 ms longer word/post-interval complex (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.6–20.4; P < 0.001). Contrast sensitivity was found to significantly interact with word length, word frequency, and word location at the end of a line with regards to word/post-word interval complex duration (P < 0.05 for all). Glaucoma severity was also associated with more lexical errors (Odds ratio = 1.20 for every 0.1 logCS decrement; 95% CI = 1.02–1.39, P < 0.05), but not with more skipped or repeated words. Conclusions. Glaucoma patients with greater vision loss make more lexical errors, are slower in reciting longer and less frequently used words, and more slowly transition to new lines of text. These problem areas may require special attention when designing methods to rehabilitate reading in patients with glaucoma.