Do Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rates of Enucleation for Uveal Melanoma Indicate Poor Quality of Care or Financial Obstacles?

Abstract

cal equivalence (2.87 diopters; 95% CI, −0.65 to 2.99; P = .28), or significant astigmatism (0.15 diopters; 95% CI, −0.39 to 0.09; P = .21).In the multivariable analyses for the better eye, there was a positive association between facial recognition and mean RGC+ (β = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.01-0.37; P = .04), even after adjusting for the 10-2 visual field as well as age, visual acuity, and number and type of drops. Multivariable analyses are summarized in the Table . Patients with diffuse macular damage recognized fewer faces (47.9; 95% CI, 43.6-52.0) than those with focal macular damage (50.4; 95% CI, 47.4-53.4) or those without macular damage (51.6; 95% CI, 48.0-55.3), although the difference only approached significance at P = .051.Discussion | In the present study, we show that decreased mean RGC+ in the better-seeing eye was independently associated with diminished facial recognition, even after adjusting for central visual field loss. This suggests that field loss may not be the only visual deficit resulting from macular damage and that the resultant functional losses may impair facial recognition. Our study also suggests that diffuse rather than focal structural macular damage in the better seeing eye may be associated with diminished facial recognition, although this will need to be validated in future studies with larger sample sizes. These findings generally support previous work showing functional differences between patients with diffuse and focal macular damage. [3][4][5] It also suggests that the global effect of diffuse damage appears to result in worsened visual function.