Effects of XXXX on MAIA microperimetry.

@entity1 @entity227 @entity231 @entity12705 @entity384 @entity1295 @entity7085
BACKGROUND: Macular Integrity Assessment microperimetry assesses macular sensitivity to projected point light sources and maps eye movements to assess fixation stability. Although microperimetry is gaining prominence as an assessment tool in clinical and research settings, there is no consensus on whether it should be performed before or after @entity384 . No studies to date have examined the effect of @entity384 on results. The aim of this project was to elucidate the effect of @entity384 on microperimetry outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective audit. @entity1 : Twenty healthy @entity1 from postoperative @entity231 clinic and 10 @entity1 with @entity12705 to simulate a disease with @entity227 . METHODS: Subjects underwent 10-2 68-point field testing using the Macular Integrity Assessment microperimeter on each eye. Subjects then underwent randomized dilation of one eye, and the test was repeated in both eyes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared changes in threshold sensitivity and fixation stability pre-pupil and post- @entity384 . The undilated eye was analysed for any learning or @entity1295 effect caused by test repetition. RESULTS: Dilation produced no significant effect on threshold sensitivity (dilation effect: -0.29 decibels, P  =  0.23) or fixation stability in healthy controls or in @entity12705 @entity1 (dilation effect: +0.08log bivariate contour @entity7085 area, P  =  0.14). There was also no significant learning effect seen in the undilated eye, with no improvement in threshold sensitivity (order of eye testing: +0.03log bivariate contour @entity7085 area, P  =  0.71). CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical setting, @entity1 may be tested for 10 degree microperimetry with or without @entity384 , as both scenarios yield consistent and interchangeable results.
