This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (15)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Al Edwards, MD, PhD; Gerald A. Fishman, MD; Robert J. Anderson, PhD; Sandeep Grover, MD; Deborah J. Derlacki

Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:165-168.

Objective  To determine the extent of visual acuity and visual field impairment in patients with types 1 and 2 Usher syndrome.

Methods  The records of 53 patients with type 1 and 120 patients with type 2 Usher syndrome were reviewed for visual acuity and visual field area at their most recent visit. Visual field areas were determined by planimetry of the II4e and V4e isopters obtained with a Goldmann perimeter. Both ordinary and logistic regression models were used to evaluate differences in visual acuity and visual field impairment between patients with type 1 and type 2 Usher syndrome.

Results  The difference in visual acuity of the better eye between patients with type 1 and type 2 varied by patient age (P=.01, based on a multiple regression model). The maximum difference in visual acuity between the 2 groups occurred during the third and fourth decades of life (with the type 1 patients being more impaired), while more similar acuities were seen in both younger and older patients. Fifty-one percent (n=27) of the type 1 patients had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye compared with 72% (n=87) of the type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 3.9). Visual field area to both the II4e (P=.001) and V4e (P<.001) targets was more impaired in the better eye of type 1 patients than type 2 patients. A concentric central visual field greater than 20° in at least 1 eye was present in 20 (59%) of the available 34 visual fields of type 1 patients compared with 70 (67%) of the available 104 visual fields of type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 2.9) with the V4e target and in 6 (21%) of the available 29 visual fields of type 1 patients compared with 36 (38%) of the available 94 visual fields of type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 4.9) with the II4e target. The fraction of patients who had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better and a concentric central visual field greater than 20° to the II4e target in at least 1 eye was 17% (n=5) in the type 1 patients and 35% (n=33) in the type 2 patients (age-adjusted odds ratio, 3.9).

Conclusions  Visual acuity and visual field area were more impaired in patients with type 1 than type 2 Usher syndrome. Of note, 27 of 53 type 1 (51%) and 87 of 120 type 2 (72%) patients had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better in at least 1 eye. These data are useful for overall counseling of patients with Usher syndrome.

From the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (Drs Edwards, Fishman, and Grover and Ms Derlacki) and the Epidemiology-Biostatistics Division, School of Public Health (Dr Anderson), University of Illinois at Chicago.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Retinal Disease in Usher Syndrome III Caused by Mutations in the Clarin-1 Gene
Herrera et al.
IOVS 2008;49:2651-2660.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Disease Expression in Usher Syndrome Caused by VLGR1 Gene Mutation (USH2C) and Comparison with USH2A Phenotype
Schwartz et al.
IOVS 2005;46:734-743.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Kinetics of Visual Field Loss in Usher Syndrome Type II
Iannaccone et al.
IOVS 2004;45:784-792.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT