Khorrami-Nejad Masoud, Heravian Javad, Sedaghat Mohamad-Reza, Momeni-Moghadam Hamed, Sobhani-Rad Davood, Askarizadeh Farshad
Refractive Errors Research Center, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran; Department of Optometry, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Cornea Research Center, Khatam-Al-Anbia Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2016 Summer;5(2):63-70.
The aim of this study was to compare the visual field (VF) categorizations (based on the severity of VF defects) between adolescent boys with hearing impairments and those with normal hearing. This cross-sectional study involved the evaluation of the VF of 64 adolescent boys with hearing impairments and 68 age-matched boys with normal hearing at high schools in Tehran, Iran, in 2013. All subjects had an intelligence quotient (IQ) > 70. The hearing impairments were classified based on severity and time of onset. Participants underwent a complete eye examination, and the VFs were investigated using automated perimetry with a Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer. This device was used to determine their foveal threshold (FT), mean deviation (MD), and Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) results. Most (50%) of the boys with hearing impairments had profound hearing impairments. There was no significant between-group difference in age (P = 0.49) or IQ (P = 0.13). There was no between-group difference in the corrected distance visual acuity (P = 0.183). According to the FT, MD, and GHT results, the percentage of boys with abnormal VFs in the hearing impairment group was significantly greater than that in the normal hearing group: 40.6% vs. 22.1%, 59.4% vs. 19.1%, and 31.2% vs. 8.8%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The mean MD in the hearing impairment group was significantly worse than that in the normal hearing group (-0.79 ± 2.04 and -4.61 ± 6.52 dB, respectively, P < 0.0001), and the mean FT was also significantly worse (38.97 ± 1.66 vs. 35.30 ± 1.43 dB, respectively, P <0.0001). Moreover, there was a significant between-group difference in the GHT results (P < 0.0001). Thus, there were higher percentages of boys with VF abnormalities and higher mean MD, FT, and GHT results among those with hearing impairments compared to those with normal hearing. These findings emphasize the need for detailed VF assessments for patients with hearing impairments.
本研究的目的是比较有听力障碍的青春期男孩与听力正常的青春期男孩之间的视野（VF）分类（基于VF缺陷的严重程度）。这项横断面研究于2013年在伊朗德黑兰的高中对64名有听力障碍的青春期男孩和68名年龄匹配的听力正常的男孩的VF进行了评估。所有受试者的智商（IQ）>70。听力障碍根据严重程度和发病时间进行分类。参与者接受了全面的眼部检查，并使用Humphrey视野分析仪通过自动视野计对VF进行了检测。该设备用于确定他们的中央凹阈值（FT）、平均偏差（MD）和青光眼半视野检测（GHT）结果。大多数（50%）有听力障碍的男孩患有重度听力障碍。两组之间在年龄（P = 0.49）或智商（P = 0.13）方面没有显著差异。矫正远视力在两组之间也没有差异（P = 0.183）。根据FT、MD和GHT结果，听力障碍组中VF异常男孩的百分比显著高于听力正常组：分别为40.6% 对22.1%、59.4% 对19.1%、31.2% 对8.8%（P < 0.0001）。听力障碍组的平均MD显著差于听力正常组（分别为-0.79±2.04和-4.61±6.52 dB，P < 0.0001），平均FT也显著更差（分别为38.97±1.66和35.30±1.43 dB，P <0.0001）。此外，两组在GHT结果方面存在显著差异（P < 0.0001）。因此，与听力正常的男孩相比，有听力障碍的男孩中VF异常的百分比更高，且平均MD、FT和GHT结果也更高。这些发现强调了对听力障碍患者进行详细VF评估的必要性。
