Abstract
Background
The purpose of our study was to demonstrate the ability of pupil campimetry to reproduce visual field defects caused by pre— and retrogeniculate lesions of the visual pathway.
Methods
By means of infrared video pupillography, light responses to perimetric stimuli were recorded. The stimulus pattern consisted of 41 test spots of 4° diameter and 140 cd/m2 luminance distributed in the central (30°) visual field. Background luminance was 2.7 cd/m2. Eight patients with pregeniculate lesions and eight patients with retrogeniculate lesions of the visual pathway were examined. Pupil field was evaulated by three skilled visual field interpreters masked to the patients’ clinical data including conventional perimetry. The spatial concordance of the visual field and the pupil field was quantitatively assessed by the ratio of intersection area and union area of the observer’s result and the visual field defect measured by conventional perimetry. The ratios in the two cohorts were compared by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Results
The concordance between pupil and conventional perimetry was better in the group of patients with retrogeniculate lesions. Ratios of the intersection area and the union area in this group were significantly higher than for the group with pregeniculate lesion of the visual pathway (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
According to our results, pupil campimetry demonstrates retrogeniculate visual pathway lesions well in contrast to pregeniculate lesions. This is in contradiction to the classical view of the pupillary pathways, where a retrogeniculate lesion actually should not influence pupillary function, whereas pregeniculate lesions should show pupillary scotomata. The cause might be that different components of the pupillary light reflex are being involved in pre— and retrogeniculate lesions, and the stimulus characteristics of pupil perimetry address better the components represented in the retrogeniculate pathway.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wernicke C (1883) Über hemianopische Pupillenreaktion. Fortschr Med 1:49–53
Loewenfeld IE (1993) The pupil. Anatomy, physiology and clinical applications. Wayne State University Press, Detroit
Brindley GS, Gautier-Smith PC, Lewin W (1969) Cortical blindness and the functions of the non-geniculate fibres of the optic tracts. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 32:259–264. doi:10.1136/jnnp.32.4.259
Harms H (1951) Hemianopische Pupillenstarre. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 118:133–147
Harms H, Aulhorn E, Ksinsik R (1973) Die Ergebnisse pupillomotorischer Perimetrie bei Sehhirnverletzten und die Vorstellungen über den Verlauf der Pupillenlichtreflexbahn. In: Dodt E, Schrader KE (eds) Die normale und die gestörte Pupillenbewegung. Bergmann, München, pp 72–82
Bresky R, Charles S (1969) Pupil motor perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol 68:108–112
Cibis GW, Campos EC, Aulhorn E (1975) Pupillary hemiakinesia in suprageniculate lesions. Arch Ophthalmol 93:1322–1327
Alexandridis E, Krastel H, Reuther R (1979) Pupillenreflexstörungen bei Läsionen der oberen Sehbahn. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 209:199–208. doi:10.1007/BF00414612
Hellner KA, Jensen W, Mueller-Jensen A (1978) Fernsehbildanalytische pupillographische Perimetrie bei Hemianopsie. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 172:731–735
Hamann KU, Hellner KA, Muller JA et al (1979) Videopupillographic and VER investigations in patients with congenital and acquired lesions of the optic radiation. Ophthalmologica 178:348–356
Kardon RH (1992) Pupil perimetry. Editorial review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 3:565–570. doi:10.1097/00055735-199210000-00002
Kardon RH, Kirkali PA, Thompson HS (1991) Automated pupil perimetry. Ophthalmology 98:485–496
Schmid R, Luedtke H, Wilhelm B, Wilhelm H (2005) Pupil campimetry in patients with visual field loss. Eur J Neurol 12:602–608. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2005.01048.x
Schiefer U, Nowomiejska K, Krapp E et al (2006) K-Train — a computer-based, interactive training program with an incorporated certification system for practicing kinetic perimetry: evaluation of acceptance and success rate. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 244:1300–1309. doi:10.1007/s00417-006-0291-9
Barbur JL (2004) Learning from the pupil — studies of basic mechanisms and clinical applications. In: Chalupa LM, Werner JS (eds) The Visual Neurosciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 641–656
Moore PA, Kardon RH (1995) Functional visual field loss: comparison of visual and pupil perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36(Suppl):S455
Yoshitomi T, Matsui T, Mukuno K et al (1996) Objective visual field measurement using pupil perimetry — clinical applications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37(Suppl):S160
Rajan MS, Bremner FD, Riordan-Eva P (2002) Pupil perimetry in the diagnosis of functional visual field loss. J R Soc Med 95:498–500. doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.10.498
Acknowledgements
The authors cordially thank Prof. Ulrich Schiefer for his comments and advice with our perimetric investigation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was supported by funds of the Marie Curie Training Site “Fighting Blindness” QLG5-CT-2001-60034 from the European Union
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Skorkovská, K., Wilhelm, H., Lüdtke, H. et al. How sensitive is pupil campimetry in hemifield loss?. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247, 947–953 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1040-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1040-7