The Effect of Contact Lens–spectacle Reversed Galilean Telescope on the Visual Field of Patients with Open-angle Glaucoma
Purpose: Glaucoma causes irreversible visual field defects. This study aims to evaluate the effect of a reversed Galilean telescope on the visual field of patients with open-angle glaucoma.
Methods: Fifty-two glaucoma patients with a restricted visual field were recruited for this study. Central 30° visual field measurements were performed using a Humphrey visual field analyzer before and after applying the reversed Galilean telescope. To be more cosmetically acceptable, a combination of contact lens–spectacle was used as the reversed Galilean telescope.
Results: Our data analysis showed that the reversed Galilean telescope had a significant effect on all measured perimetric indices. Visual field index (VFI) improved from a basic value of 44.38 ± 26.96 percent to 49.30 ± 29.83 percent by using the reversed telescope (P < 0.001). Moreover, the mean deviation (MD) was significantly improved from the initial value of –19.91 ± 7.19 dB to a value of –18.69 ± 7.73 dB (P < 0.001). However, our results showed a significant reduction in the pattern standard deviation (PSD) comparing before (9.83 ± 2.82) and after (8.51 ± 3.30) values using the reversed Galilean telescope (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: The contact lens–spectacle combination reversed Galilean telescope significantly improved the central 30° visual field of glaucoma patients with the restricted visual field.
Glaucoma, Reversed Galilean Telescope, Visual Field
1. Kennedy WL, Rosten JG, Young LM, Ciuffreda KJ, Levin MI. A field expander for patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a clinical study. Am J Optomet Physiol Optics 1977;54:744– 755.
2. Bailey I. Field expanders. Optom Monthly 1978;69:813– 816.
3. Ciuffreda K. A new field expander: A preliminary report. Optom Wkly 1977;63:126–130.
4. McGwin G, Xie A, Mays A, Joiner W, Decarlo DK, Hall TA, et al. Visual field defects and the risk of motor vehicle collisions among patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sc 2005;46:4437–4441.
5. Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, Gordon M, Cioffi GA, Ritch R, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:777–784.
6. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:389–393.
7. Duke ES, Dobree JH. System of ophthalmology vol. X: disease of retina. Henry Kimpton: London; 1967:102.
8. Mehr EB, Quillman RD. Field “expansion” by use of binocular full-field reversed 1.3 X telescopic spectacles: a case report. Am J Optomet Physiol Optics 1979;56:446– 450.
9. Campbell M, Ellison PJ, Strong JG, Lovasik JV. Unexpectedly large enhancement of a severely constricted field with reversed Galilean telescopes. Optomet Vis Sci 1989;66:239–242.
10. Flammer J. The concept of visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1986;224:389–392.
11. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, Asmanl P. On weighted visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1992;230:397–398.
12. Artes PH, O’Leary N, Hutchison DM, Heckler M, Sharpe GP, Nicolela MT, et al. Properties of the statpac visual field index. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:4030–4038.
13. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:343–353.
14. Lachenmayr BJ, Vivell P, Drance SM, Blodi FC. Principles of perimetry. Perimetry and its clinical correlation. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers Inc; 1993:12–13.
15. Szlyk JP, Fishman GA, Alexander KR, Revelins BI, Derlacki DJ, Anderson RJ. Relationship between difficulty in performing daily activities and clinical measures of visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:53–59.
16. Szlyk JP, Taglia DP, Paliga J, Edward DP, Wilensky JT. Driving performance in patients with mild to moderate glaucomatous clinical vision changes. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002;39:467–482.
17. Ramrattan RS, Wolfs RCW, Jonas SP, Jonas JB, Bakker D, Pols HA. Prevalence and causes of visual field loss in the elderly and associations with impairment in daily functioning: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1788–1794.
18. Ross JE, Bron AJ, Clarke DD. Contrast sensitivity and visual disability in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1984;68:821–827.
19. Leske MC, Heijel A, Hussein M, Bengtsson BO, Hyman L, Komaroff E. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:48–56.
20. Holm OC. A simple method for widening restricted visual fields. Arch Ophthalmol 1970;84:611–612.
21. Westheimer G. The visual world of the new contact lens wearer. J Am Optm Assoc 1962;34:135–138.
22. Lane SS, Kuppermann BD. The implantable miniature telescope for macular degeneration. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006;17:94–98.
23. Hudson HL, Lane SS, Heier JS, Stulting RD, Singerman L, Lichter PR, et al. Implantable miniature telescope for the treatment of visual acuity loss resulting from endstage age-related macular degeneration: 1-year results. Ophthalmology 2006;113:1987–2001.