Glaucoma and Driving License: How to Identify Patients at Risk of Revocation

Le résumé fourni par la source

Aim: To identify clinical criteria that are easily achievable with follow-up tests and can identify subjects not suitable for driving. Patients and methods: We recruited 194 subjects with a clear diagnosis of glaucoma, with no other conditions that could affect the visual field (VF), and who performed a reliable VF examination. All patients underwent a full ophthalmologic evaluation and a questionnaire considering driving habits. An integrated visual field (IVF) was built using both monocular VF charts; the number of missed points (NoMP) within the central 20°, the average sensitivity (AS), and the better eye mean deviation (BEMD) were evaluated. Results: A total of 128 subjects showed a valid driving license (DL); 61.7% of drivers did not show missed points within the central 20° of the IVF, 27.4% presented one to three missed points, and 10.9% had four or more missed points. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was highly above the legal criteria.Stratifying drivers by their BEMD (-7, -10, and -14 dB), we confirmed that the BEMD decrease corresponds to an increased NoMP and a decreased AS. Conclusion: Better eye mean deviation can be useful in clinical practice to identify patients at increased risk of being unsuitable for driving. Nevertheless, it is important to set specific cut-offs based on on-road driving performance. IVF evaluation may also be implemented in perimeter analysis software so that the composition of IVF, the BEMD, and the AS could directly describe the patient's binocular VF, excluding recourse to the Esterman visual field test (EVFT). Clinical significance: This new methodology will allow every physician-not just ophthalmologists-even if not an expert in evaluating a VF test, in assessing the ability to drive of glaucomatous patients. How to cite this article: Glaucoma and Driving License: How to Identify Patients at Risk of Revocation. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2022;16(2):117-123.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.