Illuminated near card assessment of potential acuity in eyes with cataract

Hofeldt, Albert J.; Weiss, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(98)98042-3

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in contrast to Hofeldt's study, which found that the INC was more predictive in eyes with comorbid disease than in eyes without comorbid disease. 12 Alio et al 14 found that the PAM was less predictive in patients with age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) than in the overall study group. It is possible that the smaller size of our subgroup with macular comorbidity (n ¼ 40) or the particular types of macular disease in our study group may account for some of the difference in results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,12 The degree of lens opacity present in these patients is the likely factor that limits potential acuity testing, especially when using methods that rely on a projection of a pinpoint light source such as the PAM and the INC. Thus, we chose to only include patients with a preoperative BSCVA of 20/200 or better in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Hofeldt, the INC was accurate within two lines in 98% of eyes with preoperative BSCVA of 20/100 or better. 12 No other studies were available to provide additional data on the INC.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus far, the predictive value of the INC in cataract patients has only been evaluated in one study by Hofeldt and Weiss in 1998, who found a predictive accuracy within two lines in 91% of all patients, and 98% of patients with preoperative acuities of 20/100 or better. 12 Our purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of the PAM and the INC, and compare their accuracies by performing both tests on a set of patients. Accuracy of these instruments in patients with macular disease was of special interest, and subgroup analyses were performed to determine if accuracy differed in these patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparison of the potential acuity meter (PAM) and the illuminated near card (INC) in patients undergoing phacoemulsification

Chang

Airiani

Miele

et al. 2005

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the accuracy of the potential acuity meter (PAM) and the illuminated near card (INC) in patients undergoing phacoemulsification. Methods During presurgical evaluations, both PAM and INC were tested on each study patient following dilation. Patients then rated the subjective ease of use of each test. Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was recorded at 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. McNemar's v 2 test for paired associations was used to analyse categorical data; paired t-tests were used for continuous variables. Results Overall, the INC was more likely than the PAM to predict BSCVA within one Snellen line (P ¼ 0.002), but this difference decreased for accuracy within two lines. The PAM predicted BSCVA within one line in 87 (70.7%) eyes, as compared to 102 (82.9%) eyes by the INC. The PAM was accurate within two lines in 109 (88.6%) eyes; the INC was accurate in 115 (93.5%) eyes. The PAM was more likely to underpredict potential acuity (Po0.001), while the INC was more likely to overpredict (P ¼ 0.004) or give exact predictions of BSCVA (Po0.001). Accuracy of the INC declined in eyes with macular comorbidity. The PAM and INC were rated as 'easy' tests by 54 (45.4%) and 93 (78.2%) patients, respectively. Conclusions Both the PAM and the INC were useful for predicting BSCVA after phacoemulsification, but the PAM was more likely to underestimate potential acuity. The INC was easier for patients to use, and had better accuracy than the PAM in patients without macular comorbidity, but was more likely to overestimate potential acuity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of the potential acuity meter (PAM) and the illuminated near card (INC) in patients undergoing phacoemulsification

Chang

Airiani

Miele

et al. 2005

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of methods using different examination equipment have been described: electroretinography (Bertrand et al 1984;Sherman et al 1988;Wu et al 1991), visual evoked potentials (Bertrand et al 1984;Odom et al 1987;Sherman et al 1988;Mori et al 2001), colour saturation discrimination (Kogure et al 1999), blue-field entoptic tests (Sinclair et al 1979;Miris & Missotten 1982;Grignolo et al 1988), B-scan ultrasonography (Sherman et al 1988), critical flicker frequency (del Romo et al 2005), laser or whitelight interferometry (Lotmar 1980;Spurny et al 1986;Lasa et al 1995;Le Sage et al 2002;Reid et al 2005) and potential acuity meter (PAM) (Spurny et al 1986;Lasa et al 1995;Devereux et al 2000;Gus et al 2000;Le Sage et al 2002;Reid et al 2005;Uy & Munoz 2005). Other tests using routine eye examination equipment have also been proposed: potential acuity pinhole test (Melki et al 1999;Uy & Munoz 2005), illuminated near card assessment (Hofeldt & Weiss 1998) and reading speed test (Pesudovs et al 2002;Stifter et al 2005); these have been compared to the more sophisticated methods (Uy & Munoz 2005). Vryghem et al (2004) proposed a simple and inexpensive macular function test using a Parinaud near reading chart, a +8 D trial lens and a Heine ophthalmoscope, which they called the Vryghem macular function test (VMFT).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of adapted Vryghem macular function test and Lotmar-light interferometer in predicting visual acuity after cataract surgery

Bertschinger¹,

Janin²,

Dosso³

2008

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a newly described macular function test (Vryghem macular function test) adapted to our examination equipment and to compare it to the Lotmar-light interferometer for the preoperative evaluation of cataract patients at the University Eye Clinic, Geneva, Switzerland. Methods: This prospective study included 71 consecutive patients (72 eyes) who were undergoing uneventful cataract surgery. Testing with the Lotmarlight interferometer and an adapted form of Vryghem macular function test (AVMFT) using a Birkhauser reading chart, a hyperaddition of +8 D and halogen illumination were performed to assess macular function and to predict postoperative visual acuity (VA). The duration of each test and the density and location of lens opacities were also noted. Best-corrected postoperative VA was compared to the predicted values of each test. Results: The positive predictive value was 94.2% for AVMFT compared to 92.2% for the Lotmar-light interferometer. The negative predictive value was 50% for AVMFT compared to 42.9% for the Lotmar-light interferometer. The sensitivity was 83.1% for AVMFT and 79.7% for the Lotmar-light interferometer. The specificity was 76.9% for AVMFT and 69.2% for the Lotmarlight interferometer. The correlation coefficient for AVMFT and preoperative Lotmar results (both in LogMAR) with postoperative best-corrected VA (poBCVA; LogMAR) were similar (0.74 and 0.77 respectively). Conclusion:The results of this study suggest that AVMFT is as reliable as the Lotmar-light interferometer in predicting postoperative VA after uneventful cataract surgery. The correlation coefficients with postoperative VA were 0.74 and 0.77, respectively. Both tests showed a high positive (94.2% and 92.2%, respectively) but a low negative (50.0% and 42.9%, respectively) predictive value.

show abstract

Cataract Surgery in the Presence of a Functioning Trabeculectomy Bleb

Mayer

Tsai

2009

Cataract Surgery in the Glaucoma Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illuminated near card assessment of potential acuity in eyes with cataract

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

A comparison of the potential acuity meter (PAM) and the illuminated near card (INC) in patients undergoing phacoemulsification

A comparison of the potential acuity meter (PAM) and the illuminated near card (INC) in patients undergoing phacoemulsification

Comparison of adapted Vryghem macular function test and Lotmar-light interferometer in predicting visual acuity after cataract surgery

Cataract Surgery in the Presence of a Functioning Trabeculectomy Bleb

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About