[The ground visual field assessment, using two methods, compared with Goldmann perimetry]. / Évaluation du champ visuel au sol, selon deux méthodes, comparée avec le champ visuel de Goldmann. Validation de l'évaluation du champ visuel au sol.

In visual rehabilitation, ground visual field assessment (GVFA) makes it possible to assess the size of scotomas in connection with locomotion and to restore the width of the patient's visual field (VF). The information obtained by these tests has never been compared with Goldmann testing. The purpose of this study was to assess the reproducibility of VF measurement under different conditions (Goldmann perimetry, manual and automated GVFA). Ten patients (51.4±14.0 years, 4 men and 6 women) with tunnel fields inferior or equal to the central 25°, performed three different versions of a binocular VF assessment: Goldmann perimetry, manual GVFA, and automated GVFA. The two versions of the GVFA were performed at 1m then 5m from the patient on the ground, and finally 5m away from the patient at eye level, facing the patient. The main outcome was the total perceived surface for each test. The reproducibility of the measurement was average or good for the test at 1m (ICC=0.685 to 0.866). Conversely, it was very poor between the tests at 5m, except for the automated and manual GVFA at 5m on the ground (ICC=0.888). This study shows good reproducibility of the GVFA measurements at 1m with less reproducibility at 5m, which can be explained by difficulties in the execution of the GVFA. Among the tests, the automated GVFA appears to be more reliable than the manual GVFA and is preferred by patients.

[A chart for low visual acuities: experience in a center for low vision and rehabilitation]. / Intérêt de mesurer les acuités visuelles très basses dans un centre de réadaptation pour déficients visuels.

INTRODUCTION: Commonly used visual test charts can be used to measure 1-m minimal visual acuities (VA) of 20/1000 (Snellen chart) and 1/40 (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] charts). METHODS: In a prospective study, we considered all patients who visited in a Low Vision and Rehabilitation Center between September 2007 and January 2009. Distance best corrected VA (DBCVA) was evaluated with the ETDRS LogMAR 4-m chart and a customized ETDRS 1-m chart, while near best corrected VA (NBCVA) was measured with the LogMAR conversion of the Parinaud 30-cm chart. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen eyes (58 patients; 34 males and 24 females with a mean age of 69+/-19.4 [19-94] years) were included in the study. Mean DBCVA was 0.97+/-0.58 LogMAR, mean NBCVA was 0.28+/-0.2 LogMAR. In 52 eyes (44.8%), distance VA was less than 1/20 (DBCVA 1.86+/-0.5 LogMAR, NBCVA 0.08+/-0.05 LogMAR). Among the 58 best seeing eyes, DBCVA was 0.87+/-0.6 LogMAR, while NBCVA was 0.34+/-0.2 LogMAR. In 18 of 58 cases (31%), distance VA was less than 1/20 (DBCVA 1.86+/-0.59 and NBCVA 1.51+/-0.42). CONCLUSION: In a center for low vision and visual rehabilitation, a customized chart was necessary in 31% of cases for evaluation of VA. A fine measurement of low VA is useful for baseline assessment and for evaluation of changes during rehabilitation.