Search

To quantify the association of visual field (VF) damage on physical activity away-from-home, per away-from-home excursion, and at-home.Prospective cohort study.Among 229 participants with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma, the severity of VF damage was defined as average sensitivity within the integrated VF (IVF). Participants wore accelerometers and global positioning system trackers for 7 days to measure physical activity and characterize activity location. Multivariable negative binomial regressions were used to test whether away-from-home activity per day, physical activity per away-from-home excursion, and at-home activity per day varied by the severity of VF damage.Each 5-dB decrement in IVF sensitivity was associated with a lower number of away-from-home activities per day (18% less moderate and vigorous physical activity [MVPA] minutes/d, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.97) and physical activities per away-from-home excursion (20% less MVPA minutes/excursion, 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.98). Similar findings were noted for other away-from-home activity measures (including active minutes/steps per day, or active minutes/steps per excursion). However, worse IVF sensitivity was not associated with measures of at-home activities (MVPA minutes/d, active minutes/d, and steps/d), time spent at or away from home, or excursions/wk (P.1 for all).Restriction of physical activity in more patients with severe glaucoma results mostly from activity restriction outside the home environment. These findings highlight the importance of maintaining a safe home environment (where activity is less restricted) and increasing confidence to perform activity, particular high-intensity activity, when leaving the home amongst patients with glaucoma.

To compare the effects of uncorrected refractive error (URE) and nonrefractive visual impairment (VI) on performance and disability measures.Cross-sectional, population-based study.A total of 2469 individuals with binocular presenting visual acuity (PVA) of ≥ 20/80 who participated in the first round of the Salisbury Eye Evaluation study.The URE was defined as binocular PVA of ≤ 20/30, improving to20/30 with subjective refraction. The VI was defined as post-refraction binocular best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of ≤ 20/30. The visual acuity decrement due to VI was calculated as the difference between BCVA and 20/30, whereas visual acuity due to URE was taken as the difference between PVA and BCVA. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the disability impact of (1) vision status (VI, URE, or normal vision) using the group with normal vision as reference and (2) a 1-line decrement in acuity due to VI or URE.Objective measures of visual function were obtained from timed performance of mobility and near vision tasks, self-reported driving cessation, and self-reported visual difficulty measured by the Activities of Daily Vision (ADV) scale. The ADV responses were analyzed using Rasch analysis to determine visual ability.Compared with individuals with normal vision, subjects with VI (n = 191) had significantly poorer objective and subjective visual functioning in all metrics examined (P0.05), whereas subjects with URE (n = 132) demonstrated slower walking speeds, slower near task performance, more frequent driving cessation, and lower ADV scores (P0.05), but did not demonstrate slower stair climbing or descent speed. For all functional metrics evaluated, the impact of VI was greater than the impact of URE. The impact of a 1-line VA decrement due to VI was associated with greater deficits in mobility measures and driving cessation when compared with a 1-line VA decrement due to URE.Visual impairment is associated with greater disability than URE across a wide variety of functional measures, even in analyses adjusting for the severity of vision loss. Refractive and nonrefractive vision loss should be distinguished in studies evaluating visual disability and be understood to have differing consequences.

To measure choroidal thickness and to determine parameters associated with it.Cross-sectional study.Seventy-four glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspects.Spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scans were obtained to estimate average choroidal thickness in a group of glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients. The average thickness was calculated from enhanced depth SD-OCT images and manually analyzed with Image J software. Open-angle glaucoma, open-angle glaucoma suspect, primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle closure, and primary angle-closure suspect were defined by published criteria. Glaucoma suspects had normal visual fields bilaterally. Glaucoma was defined by specific criteria for optic disc damage and visual field loss in ≥1 eye. The most affected eye was analyzed for comparisons across individuals, and right/left and upper half/lower half comparisons were made to compare thickness against degree of visual field damage.Average macular and peripapillary choroidal thickness measured using SD-OCT.The choroidal-scleral interface was visualized in 86% and 96% of the macular and peripapillary scans, respectively. In multivariable linear regression analysis, the macular choroid was significantly thinner in association with 4 features: Longer eyes (22 μm per mm longer [95% confidence interval (CI), -33, -11]), older individuals (31 μm thinner per decade older [95% CI, -44, -17]), lower diastolic ocular perfusion pressure (26 μm thinner per 10 mmHg lower [95% CI, 8, 44]), and thicker central corneas (6 μm per 10 μm thicker cornea [95% CI, -10, 0]). The choroid was not significantly thinner in glaucoma patients than in suspects (14 μm [95% CI, -54, 26]; P = 0.5). Peripapillary choroidal thickness was not significantly different between glaucoma and suspect patients. Thickness was not associated with damage severity as estimated by visual field mean deviation or nerve fiber layer thickness, including comparisons of right with left eye or upper with lower values.Age, axial length, CCT, and diastolic ocular perfusion pressure are significantly associated with choroidal thickness in glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients. Degree of glaucoma damage was not consistently associated with choroidal thickness.Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.