Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Aims To assess visual field (VF) pseudoprogression related to face mask use.
Methods We reviewed a total of 307 VFs performed with a face mask (FPP2/KN95 or surgical masks) and compared them with prior VFs, performed before the pandemic. VFs with suspected pseudoprogression due to mask artefacts (VF test 1) were repeated with a surgical mask and an adhesive tape on its superior border (VF test 2) to distinguish from true VF loss. Several parameters including reliability indices, test duration, VF index (VFI), mean defect (MD) and pattern deviation probability plots were compared among last pre-COVID VFs, VF tests 1 and VF tests 2, using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Results We identified 18 VFs with suspected progression artefact due to masks (5.8%). In all of them, the median VFI and MD significantly improved after fitting the superior border of the mask, showing no significant differences with pre-COVID tests. The median fixation losses were significantly higher when wearing the unfitted mask (13% vs 6%,p=0.047). The inferior hemifield was the most affected, either as a new scotoma or as an enlargement of a prior defect.
Conclusion Unfitted masks can simulate VF progression in around 6% of cases, mainly in the inferior hemifield, and increase significantly the rate of fixation losses. A similar rate of artefacts was observed using FPP2/KN95 or surgical masks. The use of a surgical mask with an adhesive tape covering the superior border may reduce mask-related artefacts, although concomitant progression cannot be ruled out in all cases.
- COVID-19
- glaucoma
- diagnostic tests/investigation
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usageStatistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors Conception and design of the work were performed by FJM-N and GR. Material preparation and data collection were performed by PVM-R, VAC and MGM. Statistical analysis was performed by MGM and GR. Research of previous literature was performed by FJM-N and LJ. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MGM and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The study protocol was approved by the local Institutional Research Ethics Committee and was carried out under the tenets of the Helsinki declaration.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article (and/or) its supplementary materials.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Linked Articles
- At a glance