We have detected that you are using an Ad Blocker. PracticeUpdate is free to end users but we rely on advertising to fund our site. Please consider supporting PracticeUpdate by whitelisting us in your ad blocker.
We have sent a message to the email address you have provided, . If this email is not correct, please update your settings with your correct address.
The email address you provided during registration, , does not appear to be valid. Please update your settings with a valid address before to continue using PracticeUpdate.
Welcome to PracticeUpdate! We hope you are enjoying access to a selection of our top-read and most recent articles. Please register today for a free account and gain full access to all of our expert-selected content.
You can find your saved items on your dashboard, in the "saved" tab.
You've recommended your first item
Your recommendations help us improve our content suggestions for you and other PracticeUpdate members.
You've subscribed to your first topic alert
What does that mean?
Each day, we'll check to see if new items have been published to the topics you're subscribed to, and we'll send you one email with all of the new items from that day.
We'll keep all topic alert notifications available on your dashboard for 30 days, to make sure you don't miss anything.
Lastly, whenever you have unread items in the topics you've subscribed to, the "Alerts" icon will light up in the main menu. Just click on the bell to see your five most-recent, unread notifications.
This study compared 307 visual fields (VFs) performed with a face mask on versus prior VFs performed (pre-COVID) without a face mask. There were 18 VFs with suspected pseudoprogression due to mask wearing. After applying adhesive tape to the top border of the mask there was no significant differences with pre-COVID testing in these 18 VFs.
Taping the top of mask can reduce mask-related artefacts. This study highlights the ocular considerations that need to be taken into account as masks become a standard aspect of health care.
To assess visual field (VF) pseudoprogression related to face mask use.
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.
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.
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.