Search

Introduction: Bitemporal hemianopia is usually caused by chiasmal pathology. Rarely, chorioretinal lesions may develop symmetrically in both eyes and mimic chiasmopathy., Methods: This case series included three patients who presented to a tertiary neuro-ophthalmology centre with bitemporal hemianopic defects between 2021 and 2023 and were subsequently diagnosed with bilateral chorioretinopathy. All patients received comprehensive examinations from a fellowship-trained neuro-ophthalmologist and uveitis specialist to rule out other causes of visual dysfunction., Results: Three males aged 64, 62, and 72 years were included. All patients showed bitemporal hemianopic defects crossing the vertical midline on automated perimetry and binasal thinning of the macular ganglion cell complex on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT). Fundus autofluorescence (FAF) showed classical features of acute zonal occult outer retinopathy (AZOOR) in two patients and central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) in another. AZOOR diagnosis was preceded by neuroimaging in both cases, whereas the patient with CSCR had longstanding, electroretinography-confirmed lesions and did not require neuroimaging. Fundus appearance and visual field defects remained stable in all patients across 3-6 months of follow-up., Conclusions: Bilateral chorioretinopathy should be considered in the differential diagnosis of bitemporal hemianopia in specific cases, including when visual field defects cross the vertical midline and when neuroimaging fails to reveal chiasmal pathology. FAF and macular OCT have high diagnostic yield as initial investigations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest No conflicting relationship exists for any author., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate gaze-scanning by pedestrians with homonymous hemianopia (HH) when walking on mid-block sidewalks., Methods: Pedestrians with right homonymous hemianopia (RHH), and left homonymous hemianopia (LHH) without and with left spatial neglect (LHSN) walked on city streets wearing a gaze-tracking system. Gaze points were obtained by combining head movement and eye-in-head movement. Mixed-effects regression models were used to compare horizontal gaze scan magnitudes and rates between the side of the hemi-field loss (BlindSide) and the seeing side (SeeingSide), among the three subject groups, and between mid-block walking and street crossing segments., Results: A total of 7021 gaze scans were obtained from 341 minutes of mid-block walking videos by 19 participants (6 with LHH, 7 with RHH, and 6 with LHSN). The average gaze magnitude and scanning rate in mid-block segments were significantly higher towards the BlindSide than the SeeingSide in LHH (magnitude larger by 1.9° (degrees), P = 0.006; scan rate higher by 4.2 scans/minute, P < 0.001) and RHH subjects (magnitude larger by 3.3°, P < 0.001; scan rate higher by 3.2 scans/minute, P = 0.002), but they were not significantly different in LHSN subjects. The scanning rate, in terms of scans/minute (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) was significantly lower in LHSN subjects (mean = 6.9, 95% CI = 5.6-8.7) than LHH (mean = 10.2, 95% CI = 8.0-13.1; P = 0.03) and RHH (mean = 11.1, 95% CI = 9.0-13.7; P = 0.007) subjects. Compared to street-crossings, the scan rate during the mid-block segments was lower by 3.5 scans/minute (P < 0.001) and the gaze magnitude was smaller by 3.8° (P < 0.001) over the 3 groups., Conclusions: Evidence of compensatory scanning suggests a proactive, top-down mechanism driving gaze in HH. The presence of spatial neglect (SN) appeared to negatively impact the top-down process.

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Significance: Performance-based outcome measures are crucial for clinical trials of field expansion devices. We implemented a test simulating a real-world mobility situation, focusing on detection of a colliding pedestrian among multiple noncolliding pedestrians, suitable for measuring the effects of homonymous hemianopia and assistive devices in clinical trials., Purpose: In preparation for deploying the test in a multisite clinical trial, we conducted a pilot study to gather preliminary data on blind-side collision detection performance with multiperiscopic peripheral prisms compared with Fresnel peripheral prisms. We tested the hypothesis that detection rates for colliding pedestrians approaching on a 40° bearing angle (close to the highest collision risk when walking) would be higher with 100Δ oblique multiperiscopic (≈42° expansion) than 65Δ oblique Fresnel peripheral prisms (≈32° expansion)., Methods: Six participants with homonymous hemianopia completed the test with and without each type of prism glasses, after using them in daily mobility for a minimum of 4 weeks. The test, presented as a video on a large screen, simulated walking through a busy shopping mall. Colliding pedestrians approached from the left or the right on a bearing angle of 20 or 40°., Results: Overall, blind-side detection was only 23% without prisms but improved to 73% with prisms. For multiperiscopic prisms, blind-side detection was significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (88 vs. 0%) and 20° (75 vs. 0%). For Fresnel peripheral prisms, blind-side detection rates were not significantly higher with than without prisms at 40° (38 vs. 0%) but were significantly higher with prisms at 20° (94 vs. 56%). At 40°, detection rates were significantly higher with multiperiscopic than Fresnel prisms (88 vs. 38%)., Conclusions: The collision detection test is suitable for evaluating the effects of hemianopia and prism glasses on collision detection, confirming its readiness to serve as the primary outcome measure in the upcoming clinical trial., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: EP has a patent for oblique peripheral prisms licensed to Chadwick Optical Inc and a patent for multiperiscopic peripheral prisms assigned to Schepens Eye Research Institute. The sponsor provided financial and material support but had no role in the study design, conduct, analysis and interpretation, or writing of the report., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Optometry.)

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.