Hemianopic visual field loss in a young child tested with Pediatric Perimeter: A case report

Monika Thakur¹, Goura Chattannavar², and PremNandhini Satgunam^1,3
1Brien Holden Institute of Optometry and Vision Sciences, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad-500 034, India
²Jasti V Ramanamma Children’s Eye Care Centre, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad-500 034, India
³Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation, L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad-500 034, India
Dedicated to Prof Jay M Enoch

Visual field defects in children remain unrecognized due to lack of age-appropriate perimeter to assess visual fields in them. This case report highlights the case of a child who developed visual field defect following a head trauma. In this case, the use of the Pediatric Perimeter to assess the visual field aided the examiner in diagnosing the right homonymous hemianopic field loss. The conventional perimeter could not detect the defect due to low test reliability of the test for this child. The observed visual field defect correlated with the location of the brain injury and the clinical presentation of a right face turn of the child, which developed, post the head trauma. Detection of visual field defects following brain injuries are necessary for the better management and rehabilitation of the condition. The use of age-appropriate testing devices can help document visual fields in young children as well, especially when testing with conventional device is not possible. The Pediatric Perimeter is one such device for young children. © Anita Publications. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Perimeter, Brain injury, Children, Visual field, Head trauma.

Peer Review Information
Method: Single- anonymous; Screened for Plagiarism? Yes
Buy this Article in Print © Anita Publications. All rights reserve

References

1. Horton J C, Hoyt W F, The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. A revision of the classic Holmes map, Arch Ophthalmol, 109(1991)816–824.
2. Kedar S, Zhang X, Lynn M J, Newman N J, Biousse V, Pediatric homonymous hemianopia, J AAPOS, 10(2006)249–252.
3. Harbert M J, Yeh-Nayre L A, O’Halloran H S, Levy M L, Crawford J R, Unrecognized visual field deficits in children with primary central nervous system brain tumors, J Neurooncol, 107(2012)545–549.
4. Satgunam P, Peli E, Torsional anomalous retinal correspondence effectively expands the visual field in hemianopia, Optom Vis Sci, 89(2012)E1353-1363.
5. Satgunam P, Datta S, Chillakala K, Bobbili KR, Joshi D. Pediatric perimeter-A noveldevice to measure visual fields in infants and patients with special needs, Transl Vis Sci Technol, 6(2017)3; doi.org/10.1167/tvst.6.4.3.
6. Vingrys A J, Demirel S, False-response monitoring during automated perimetry, Optom Vis Sci, 75(1998)513-517.
7. Donahue S P, Porter A, SITA visual field testing in children, J aapos, 5(2001)114-117.
8. Marraffa M, Pucci V, Marchini G, Morselli S, Bellucci R, Bonomi L, HPR perimetry and Humphrey perimetry in glaucomatous children, Doc Ophthalmol, 89(1995)383–386.
9. Koenraads Y, van der Linden D C, van Schooneveld M M, Imhof S M, Gosselaar P H, Porro G L, Braun K P J, Visual function and compensatory mechanisms for hemianopia after hemispherectomy in children, Epilepsia, 55(2014)909–917.
10. Donahue S P, Haun A K, Exotropia and face turn in children with homonymous hemianopia, J Neuroophthalmol, 27(2007)304–307.
11. Bronstad P M, Peli E, Liu R, Doherty A, Fulton A B, High prevalence of strabismic visual field expansion in pediatric homonymous hemianopia, PLoS One,13(2018)e0209213; doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209213.
12. Herzau V, Bleher I, Joos-Kratsch E, Infantile exotropia with homonymous hemianopia: a rare contraindication for strabismus surgery, Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 226(1988)148–149.