Optometry Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Optometry, including details on myopia, optometric practice, therapy.

Reading performance of patients with uveitis-associated cystoid macular edema.

Kiss CG, Barisani-Asenbauer T, Maca S, Richter-Mueksch S, Radner W

Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the extent of the visual impairment caused by uveitis-associated cystoid macular edema (CME) and compare the results with lesion size. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: setting: Uveitis outpatient clinic of the Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University of Vienna. patient population: CME was verified in 30 eyes of 30 consecutive uveitis patients with optical coherence tomography and lesion size was assessed with retinal thickness analyzer. main outcome measures: Distance visual acuity (VA) (measured with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts), reading acuity, and reading speed (tested with Radner Reading Charts). Results were compared with nonaffected partner eyes. RESULTS: Distance VA was logMAR 0.22 +/- 0.15 in CME eyes vs -0.02 +/- 0.17 in healthy controls. Reading acuity was 75% of logMAR in CME eyes vs 92% of logMAR in control eyes (P = .01). The mean reading speed was 148.4 +/- 36.6 words per minute in patients with CME vs 168.9 +/- 36.3 in patients without CME (P = .04). Reading acuity correlated with both lesion size and distance VA (r = 0.61; P = .01 and r = 0.53; P = .028, respectively). Neither anatomical classification of uveitis nor gender or age had a significant influence on the evaluated parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Reading acuity and reading speed were considerably more impaired than distance visual acuity. The assessed parameters showed a better correlation to lesion size and seem to be a better reflection of macular dysfunction. Analyzing reading function is an important factor when following patients with CME and evaluating success of treatment modalities.

Published 2 October 2006 in Am J Ophthalmol, 142(4): 620-4.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

© 2005-2008 Optometry Research Today. All Rights Reserved.