Comparing pupil function with visual function in patients with Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy.

PURPOSE To compare pupil function with visual function in patients with Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON) and age-matched normal control subjects. METHODS Visual function was assessed by measuring the perceptual thresholds at five central locations in the visual field using automated static perimetry. Pupil function was assessed by recording the pupil responses to a standard intensity light stimulus (size equivalent to a Goldmann V target) presented at the same five locations in the visual field. The extent of the pupil afferent defect in LHON patients was quantified by establishing the relationship between stimulus intensity and the size of the pupil response in normal subjects and then interpolating the equivalent luminance deficit in LHON patients from the size of their pupil responses. RESULTS At all five locations tested, the pupil responses were significantly reduced in amplitude, and the perceptual thresholds were significantly raised in LHON patients compared with normal control subjects. A nonparametric analysis of perceptual and pupil responses to perithreshold stimuli showed that a stimulus that was not perceived was three times more likely to be followed by a pupil response in a LHON patient than in a normal subject (P < 0.001). A quantitative comparison showed that the visual deficits exceeded the pupil deficits by on average 7.5 dB at all tested locations. CONCLUSIONS Although both visual and pupil function are abnormal in LHON, there appears to be relative sparing of the pupil afferent fibers.

[1]  E. Stone,et al.  Relative afferent pupillary defects in patients with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy and unilateral visual loss. , 1998, American journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  M. Wakakura,et al.  Evidence for preserved direct pupillary light response in Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy. , 1995, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  K. Huoponen,et al.  Ophthalmologic findings in Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, with special reference to mtDNA mutations. , 1996, Ophthalmology.

[4]  M. Yamamoto,et al.  Preservation of photic blink reflex in Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy. , 1996, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  A. Sadun,et al.  A histopathologic and morphometric differentiation of nerves in optic nerve hypoplasia and Leber hereditary optic neuropathy. , 1998, Archives of ophthalmology.

[6]  J. Stone,et al.  Properties of cat retinal ganglion cells: a comparison of W-cells with X- and Y-cells. , 1974, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  T. Rosenberg,et al.  Is Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy a retinal disorder?: Report of a case , 1996 .

[8]  H. Lüdtke,et al.  Pupillary light reflexes in patients with Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy , 1999, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[9]  H S Thompson,et al.  The relationship between static perimetry and the relative afferent pupillary defect. , 1993, American journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  R. W. Rodieck,et al.  Retinal ganglion cell classes in the Old World monkey: morphology and central projections. , 1981, Science.

[11]  M. Bartholomew,et al.  Correlation of afferent pupillary defect with visual field loss on automated perimetry. , 1988, Ophthalmology.

[12]  M. Sanders,et al.  The clinical features of Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy defined by the presence of a pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutation. , 1995, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[13]  J J Corbett,et al.  The relationship between visual acuity, pupillary defect, and visual field loss. , 1982, American journal of ophthalmology.