A prospective profile of visual field loss following stroke: prevalence, type, rehabilitation, and outcome.

AIMS: To profile site of stroke/cerebrovascular accident, type and extent of field loss, treatment options, and outcome. METHODS: Prospective multicentre cohort trial. Standardised referral and investigation protocol of visual parameters. RESULTS: 915 patients were recruited with a mean age of 69 years (SD 14). 479 patients (52%) had visual field loss. 51 patients (10%) had no visual symptoms. Almost half of symptomatic patients (n = 226) complained only of visual field loss: almost half (n = 226) also had reading difficulty, blurred vision, diplopia, and perceptual difficulties. 31% (n = 151) had visual field loss as their only visual impairment: 69% (n = 328) had low vision, eye movement deficits, or visual perceptual difficulties. Occipital and parietal lobe strokes most commonly caused visual field loss. Treatment options included visual search training, visual awareness, typoscopes, substitutive prisms, low vision aids, refraction, and occlusive patches. At followup 15 patients (7.5%) had full recovery, 78 (39%) had improvement, and 104 (52%) had no recovery. Two patients (1%) had further decline of visual field. Patients with visual field loss had lower quality of life scores than stroke patients without visual impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke survivors with visual field loss require assessment to accurately define type and extent of loss, diagnose coexistent visual impairments, and offer targeted treatment.

Profile of Gaze Dysfunction following Cerebrovascular Accident.

Aim. To evaluate the profile of ocular gaze abnormalities occurring following stroke. Methods. Prospective multicentre cohort trial. Standardised referral and investigation protocol including assessment of visual acuity, ocular alignment and motility, visual field, and visual perception. Results. 915 patients recruited: mean age 69.18 years (SD 14.19). 498 patients (54%) were diagnosed with ocular motility abnormalities. 207 patients had gaze abnormalities including impaired gaze holding (46), complete gaze palsy (23), horizontal gaze palsy (16), vertical gaze palsy (17), Parinaud's syndrome (8), INO (20), one and half syndrome (3), saccadic palsy (28), and smooth pursuit palsy (46). These were isolated impairments in 50% of cases and in association with other ocular abnormalities in 50% including impaired convergence, nystagmus, and lid or pupil abnormalities. Areas of brain stroke were frequently the cerebellum, brainstem, and diencephalic areas. Strokes causing gaze dysfunction also involved cortical areas including occipital, parietal, and temporal lobes. Symptoms of diplopia and blurred vision were present in 35%. 37 patients were discharged, 29 referred, and 141 offered review appointments. 107 reviewed patients showed full recovery (4%), partial improvement (66%), and static gaze dysfunction (30%). Conclusions. Gaze dysfunction is common following stroke. Approximately one-third of patients complain of visual symptoms, two thirds show some improvement in ocular motility.

Reading difficulty after stroke: ocular and non ocular causes.

BACKGROUND: Ocular causes of reading impairment following stroke include visual field loss, eye movement impairment and poor central vision. Non ocular causes may include cognitive errors or language impairment. AIM: The purpose of this study was to identify all patients referred with suspected visual impairment who had reported reading difficulty to establish the prevalence of ocular and non ocular causes. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, observation study with standardised referral and assessment forms across 21 sites. Visual assessment included visual acuity measurement, visual field assessment, ocular alignment, and movement and visual inattention assessment. Multicentre ethical approval and informed patient consent were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 915 patients were recruited, with a mean age of 69·18 years (standard deviation 14·19). Reading difficulties were reported by 177 patients (19·3%), with reading difficulty as the only symptom in 39 patients. Fifteen patients had normal visual assessment but with a diagnosis of expressive or receptive aphasia. Eight patients had alexia. One hundred and nine patients had visual field loss, 85 with eye movement abnormality, 27 with low vision and 39 patients with visual perceptual impairment. Eighty-seven patients had multiple ocular diagnoses with combined visual field, eye movement, low vision or inattention problems. All patients with visual impairment were given targeted treatment and/or advice including prisms, occlusion, refraction, low vision aids and scanning exercises. CONCLUSIONS: Patients complaining of reading difficulty were mostly found to have visual impairment relating to low vision, eye movement or visual field loss. A small number were found to have non ocular causes of reading difficulty. Treatment or advice was possible for all patients with visual impairment.