Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Clinical heterogeneity of dominant optic atrophy: the contribution of visual function investigations to diagnosis


Del Porto, G; Vingolo, E M; Steindl, Katharina; Forte, R; Iannaccone, A; Rispoli, E; Pannarale, M R (1994). Clinical heterogeneity of dominant optic atrophy: the contribution of visual function investigations to diagnosis. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 232(12):717-727.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The variability of the visual function impairment in dominant optic atrophy (DOA) makes it difficult to diagnose the disease within genealogies. Physiologic investigations were conducted on a family with DOA to evaluate methods of detecting clinical and subclinical signs in obligate heterozygotes, in order to identify affected subjects within the genealogy and to formulate the individual and reproductive risks.
METHODS: Investigations included tests for color vision, contrast sensitivity function (CSF), kinetic and static computerized perimetry, transient pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs) and steady-state flash VEPs.
RESULTS: Eight subjects from the pedigree were diagnosed as having DOA. Two of them were unaware of their affection, and six showed wide clinical variability. CSF paralleled the central visual impairment, but was also slightly impaired in the two unaware subjects. Static computerized perimetry disclosed mild sensitivity defects in the central visual fields in these two patients. VEPs showed heterogeneous results as well, ranging from normal findings to severely altered tracings.
CONCLUSIONS: This investigation suggests that combined clinical and functional evaluation is necessary to diagnose DOA. Particularly, the combined use of computerized perimetry, CSF, and VEPs allowed the identification of cases at a subclinical stage.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The variability of the visual function impairment in dominant optic atrophy (DOA) makes it difficult to diagnose the disease within genealogies. Physiologic investigations were conducted on a family with DOA to evaluate methods of detecting clinical and subclinical signs in obligate heterozygotes, in order to identify affected subjects within the genealogy and to formulate the individual and reproductive risks.
METHODS: Investigations included tests for color vision, contrast sensitivity function (CSF), kinetic and static computerized perimetry, transient pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (VEPs) and steady-state flash VEPs.
RESULTS: Eight subjects from the pedigree were diagnosed as having DOA. Two of them were unaware of their affection, and six showed wide clinical variability. CSF paralleled the central visual impairment, but was also slightly impaired in the two unaware subjects. Static computerized perimetry disclosed mild sensitivity defects in the central visual fields in these two patients. VEPs showed heterogeneous results as well, ranging from normal findings to severely altered tracings.
CONCLUSIONS: This investigation suggests that combined clinical and functional evaluation is necessary to diagnose DOA. Particularly, the combined use of computerized perimetry, CSF, and VEPs allowed the identification of cases at a subclinical stage.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
9 citations in Web of Science®
8 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 25 Nov 2020
1 download since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Medical Genetics
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Ophthalmology
Life Sciences > Sensory Systems
Life Sciences > Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
Language:English
Date:December 1994
Deposited On:25 Nov 2020 17:41
Last Modified:23 Apr 2024 01:47
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0721-832X
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184274
PubMed ID:7890185