Injury of the optic radiation in patients with mild TBI: A DTT study

Sung Ho Jang; Seong Ho Kim; You Sung Seo

doi:10.1515/tnsci-2020-0108

Article Open Access

Injury of the optic radiation in patients with mild TBI: A DTT study

Sung Ho Jang , Seong Ho Kim and You Sung Seo

Published/Copyright: September 21, 2020

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Translational Neuroscience Volume 11 Issue 1

Abstract

Objectives

We investigated injuries of the optic radiations (ORs) in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) by using diffusion tensor tractography (DTT).

Methods

Fifty-two consecutive patients who complained of visual problems showed abnormal visual evoked potential (VEP) latency but no abnormality on conventional brain MRI after mild TBI, and fifty normal control subjects were recruited for this study. Subjects’ ORs were reconstructed using DTT, and three DTT parameters (fractional anisotropy [FA], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], and tract volume) were measured for each OR.

Results

Mean FA value and tract volume of the OR were significantly lower in the patient group than in the control group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the ADC values of the OR between the patient and control groups (p > 0.05). A weak negative correlation was detected between VEP latency and OR fiber number (r = 0.204, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

DTT revealed that OR injuries were not detected on the conventional brain MRI scans of patients who complained of visual problems and had abnormal VEP latency after mild TBI. Our results suggest that DTT would be a useful technique for detecting OR injury in patients with mild TBI.

Keywords: diffusion tensor imaging; diffusion tensor tractography; optic radiation; visual evoked potential; mild traumatic brain injury; head trauma

1 Introduction

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can be classified as mild, moderate, or severe based on assessment of the injury, and mild TBI comprises approximately 75% of all TBIs [1,2]. The visual system is vulnerable to TBI because several cranial nerves and about 30–40 cortical areas are involved in vision [1,2]. The prevalence of visual problems (e.g., oculomotor problems, visual field defects, visual information processing dysfunction, and visual attention deficits) in patients with TBI is high, approximately 50% of cases [3,4,5,6]. However, research on visual problems in mild TBI is rare; to the best of our knowledge, only one study has reported on the prevalence of visual problems in mild TBI. In that study, about 15% of mile TBI patients had visual problems (light sensitivity, 7%; blurred vision, 6%; double vision, 2%) [7]. Since the introduction of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), several studies have described neural tract injuries in patients with mild TBI [8,9,10]. The demonstration of injury of neural tracts in patients with mild TBI is clinically important because such patients usually show no abnormality on conventional brain MRI [8,10,11,12,13]. Injury of the neural tracts after mild TBI has been demonstrated in the corticospinal tract, as well as in the fornix and cingulum [8,10,11,12,13]. However, little has been reported on mild TBI and the neural tracts involved in visual function, such as the optic radiation (OR) [11].

The OR is not easily distinguishable from adjacent neural structures. Therefore, a precise diagnosis of an OR injury is difficult when using conventional MRI or positron emission tomography [14,15,16]. However, diffusion tensor tractography (DTT), derived from DTI, allows three-dimensional reconstruction and evaluation of neural tracts, including the OR [14,16]. Although many studies have used DTI or DTT to describe OR injuries in patients with various brain pathologies including TBI [17,18,19], little has been reported about such injuries in mild TBI [9,20].

In this study, we used DTT to investigate OR injuries in patients with mild TBI.

2 Subjects and methods

2.1 Subjects

Fifty-two patients (20 males, 32 females; mean age: 45.9 ± 15.2 years, range: 18–72 years) with TBI who complained of visual problems and visited the rehabilitation department of a university hospital and 50 normal control subjects (23 males and 27 females; mean age: 42.2 ± 15.6 years, range: 21–75 years) were recruited for this study. The patients were recruited according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) loss of consciousness for less than 30 min, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13–15, and posttraumatic amnesia for less than 24 h [1,21]; (2) no brain lesion detected on conventional MRI (T1-weighted, T2-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, and T2-weighted gradient recall echo images); (3) more than 1 month after TBI onset; (4) age ranging from 18 to 75 years; (5) delayed visual evoked potential (VEP) latency; (6) complaints related to visual problems (e.g., visual defect, poor vision, or blurred vision); and (7) no history of head trauma or neurologic or psychiatric disease. No significant differences in age or sex compositions were detected between the patient and normal control groups (p > 0.05).

The VEP latent period was used to evaluate the status of the visual pathway. The normal VEP latency period reference values, by age and gender, were as follows: <107 ms (20–59 years for females), <110 ms (20–49 years for males, <115 ms (10–19 years for both sexes), <110 ms (60–69 years for females), and <120 m/s (50–69 years for males) [22].

Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: The research has been complied with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies, and in accordance the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration. The data were collected retrospectively, and the study protocol was approved by the appropriate institutional review board.

2.2 DTI

DTI data were acquired at an average of 5.2 ± 3.4 months after onset using a six-channel head coil on a 1.5 T Philips Gyroscan Intera MRI scanner. Imaging parameters were as follows: acquisition matrix = 96 × 96; reconstructed to matrix = 192 × 192 matrix; field of view = 240 mm × 240 mm; TR = 10,398 ms; TE = 72 ms; EPI factor = 5.9; b = 1,000 s/mm²; NEX = 1; slice gap = 0 mm; slice thickness = 2.5 mm.

Figure 1

(a) T₂-weighted MR images show no abnormal lesion. (b) DTT for the injured OR (red arrow) and the VEP (latency: 151 m/s) of a patient (31-year-old male). (c) DTT of the OR and the VEP (latency: 100 m/s) of a normal subject (32 year old male).

Eddy current-induced image distortions were removed by using affine multiscale two-dimensional registration as provided in the Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Brain Software Library (FSL; www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl) [23]. DTI-Studio software (CMRM, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA) was used for OR evaluation [24]. Fiber tracking was based on the fiber assignment continuous tracking algorithm and the multiple regions of interest (ROI) approach. To delineate the OR, a seed ROI was placed on the lateral geniculate body (LGB) on the color map, whereas the target ROI was placed on the color map at the OR bundle located in the middle portion between the LGB and the occipital pole [14,15]. Fiber tracking was performed based on a fractional anisotropy (FA) threshold of >0.15 and a direction threshold of <70° (Figure 1). We determined the FA, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and tract volume of the OR in both hemispheres of each subject. DTI parameter values that were more than one standard deviation above or below the normal control values were defined as abnormal.

2.2.1 VEPs

VEP measurements were obtained by using a Nicolet 1 channel LED goggle system. All procedures were performed with the subject in an awake state. The recording electrode was placed over the occipital cortex, and the amplitude and latency of the waveform generated were measured. Baseline flash goggle VEPs were recorded at O1/Cz (left visual cortex-to-vertex), Oz/Cz (midline visual cortex-to-vertex), and O2/Cz (right visual cortex-to-vertex) with OS (both eyes), OU (the right eye), and OD (the left eye) stimulation.

2.3 Statistical analysis

DTT data were analyzed by performing group-based analyses of the DTT parameters of the ORs in the patient and control groups. SPSS software (v. 15.0; SPSS, Inc., IBM Company, Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for data analysis. The chi-squared test was used to examine the difference in sex compositions of the patient and control groups, and an independent t-test was used to assess age differences between the patient and control groups. Paired t-tests were used to assess the differences in DTT parameter values of the ORs of the patient and control groups. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to quantify the correlation between DTT parameters of the OR and clinical data (i.e., VEP latency). Null hypotheses of no difference were rejected if p-values were less than 0.05. A correlation coefficient of more than 0.60 indicated a strong correlation, a correlation coefficient between 0.40 and 0.59 indicated a moderate correlation, a correlation coefficient between 0.20 and 0.39 indicated a weak correlation, and a correlation coefficient less than 0.19 indicated a very weak relationship [25].

3 Results

A summary of the comparisons of the DTT parameters of the patient and control groups is presented in Table 1. The mean FA value and average tract volume of the ORs of the patient group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was detected between the ADC values of the ORs of the patient and control groups (p > 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 1

Visual problems of individual patients

No.	Age	Sex	Visual defect	Poor vision	Blurred vision
1	45	F	○	○
2	23	F			○
3	56	F	○
4	52	F		○	○
5	13	F	○	○
6	50	F	○	○
7	60	F		○	○
8	40	F		○
9	35	F	○	○
10	22	F	○	○
11	56	F	○	○
12	72	F		○
13	65	F	○	○
14	53	M	○	○
15	42	M	○	○
16	18	M	○	○	○
17	62	F	○	○	○
18	30	M	○	○
19	46	M	○	○
20	50	F	○	○
21	49	F	○	○
22	61	F	○
23	56	F	○	○
24	58	F	○	○
25	33	F		○
26	39	M	○	○	○
27	41	M	○	○
28	56	M	○	○
29	58	M	○	○
30	63	F	○	○
31	35	F	○	○
32	65	F	○	○
33	38	F	○	○
34	38	M		○
35	19	M		○
36	25	F		○
37	35	F		○
38	59	F	○	○
39	21	M	○	○
40	31	M		○
41	58	M	○	○
42	58	F	○	○
43	26	M		○
44	63	F	○	○
45	59	F	○	○
46	61	F		○
47	58	M		○	○
48	27	M	○	○
49	21	M	○	○
50	29	F	○	○	○
51	62	M		○
52	65	M		○

Table 2

Comparison of DTT parameters between the patient and control groups

	Patient group	Control group	p-Value
FA	0.47 (±0.11)	0.50 (±0.05)	0.042a
ADC	0.64 (±0.18)	0.60 (±0.04)	0.602
Fiber number	544.55 (±347.44)	1253.25 (±306.20)	0.001*

FA: fractional anisotropy, ADC: apparent diffusion coefficient, values represent patients: mean ± standard deviation (controls: mean ± standard deviation).

a
Significant difference between the patient and control groups, p < 0.05.

A weak negative correlation was observed between the VEP latency values and fiber numbers of the ORs of the patient group (r = 0.204, p < 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3

Correlation between DTT parameters and VEP latency

	FA	ADC	Fiber number
VEP latency	0.005	0.026	−0.214a

FA: fractional anisotropy, ADC: apparent diffusion coefficient, VEP: visual evoked potential.

a
Significant difference between DTT parameter and VEP latency, p < 0.05.

4 Discussion

In this study, we investigated injury to the ORs in patients with visual problems and abnormal VEP latencies after the onset of mild TBI and determined the following: (1) FA and tract volume values of the ORs were significantly lower in the patient group than in the control group; (2) tract volume of the OR in the patient group was weakly negatively correlated with the VEP latency period.

The FA value represents the degree of directionality of microstructures, while the ADC value represents the magnitude of water diffusion [26,27,28]. Tract volume represents the number of voxels in a neural tract and is considered to indicate the number of fibers in that tract; therefore, a decrease in the fiber number indicates injury to a neural tract [29]. Decrements in FA and fiber number without a similar decrement in ADC in the patient group appears to indicate the presence of OR injuries in the patient group. Because the conventional brain MRI scans of the subjects in the patient group were normal, we suggest that the injury of these neural tracts was the result of traumatic axonal injury [30,31]. Furthermore, the weak negative correlation between VEP latency and OR fiber number suggests that a change in VEP latency reflects a change in the severity of an OR injury.

Since the introduction of DTI, many studies have used that imaging approach to document OR injury in patients with TBI [9,11,20,30,31,32,33,34,35]. The majority of these studies demonstrated the presence of OR injuries in patients with moderate or severe TBI [11,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Only a few similar studies of mild TBI have been reported [9,20]. In 2015, Jang and Seo investigated two patients with visual field defects in whom OR injuries were revealed on DTT [9]. During the same year, Vigneswaran et al. reported the decrements of FA values and increments of ADC values on DTI of the ORs in 61 patients with mild TBI compared with 19 normal control subjects [20]. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first DTT-based study on patients with visual problems and abnormal VEP latencies after the onset of mild TBI. However, some limitations of this study should be considered. First, the fiber tracking technique is operator dependent. Second, DTT can produce false-negative results throughout the white matter of the brain due to fiber crossing or the partial volume effect [36,37]. Third, we could not investigate the relationship between the severity of visual problems and the magnitude of the DTT parameters because the clinical records presented presence or absence information, not severity-related information. Therefore, further prospective studies including detailed data related to visual problems should be encouraged.

In conclusion, by using DTT, we investigated OR injuries in patients who complained of visual problems and had VEP latency abnormalities after the onset of mild TBI. Our analysis of DTT parameters revealed the presence of OR injuries that were not detected on conventional brain MRI scans. Our results suggest that DTT would be a useful technique for detecting OR injuries in patients with mild TBI.

Author contributions: Sung Ho Jang: study concept and design, manuscript development, and writing; Seong Ho Kim: acquisition and analysis of data; You Sung Seo: study concept and design, acquisition and analysis of data, and manuscript authorization
Source of funding: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government(MSIP) (No. 2018R1A2B6000996).
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

References

[1] De Kruijk JR, Twijnstra A, Leffers P. Diagnostic criteria and differential diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2001;15:99–106.10.1080/026990501458335Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Elisevich KV, Ford RM, Anderson DP, Stratford JG, Richardson PM. Visual abnormalities with multiple trauma. Surg Neurol. 1984;22:565–75.10.1016/0090-3019(84)90433-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Kelts EA. Traumatic brain injury and visual dysfunction: a limited overview. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010;27:223–9.10.3233/NRE-2010-0601Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Ripley DL, Politzer T. Vision disturbance after TBI. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010;27:215–6.10.3233/NRE-2010-0599Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Schlageter K, Gray B, Hall K, Shaw R, Sammet R. Incidence and treatment of visual dysfunction in traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 1993;7:439–48.10.3109/02699059309029687Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Van Stavern GP, Biousse V, Lynn MJ, Simon DJ, Newman NJ. Neuro-ophthalmic manifestations of head trauma. J Neuroophthalmol. 2001;21:112–7.10.1097/00041327-200106000-00012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Lannsjo M, Af Geijerstam JL, Johansson U, Bring J, Borg J. Prevalence and structure of symptoms at 3 months after mild traumatic brain injury in a national cohort. Brain Inj. 2009;23:213–9.10.1080/02699050902748356Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Arfanakis K, Haughton VM, Carew JD, Rogers BP, Dempsey RJ, Meyerand ME. Diffusion tensor MR imaging in diffuse axonal injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23:794–802.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Jang SH, Seo JP. Damage to the optic radiation in patients with mild traumatic brain injury. J Neuroophthalmol. 2015;35:270–3.10.1097/WNO.0000000000000249Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Shenton ME, Hamoda HM, Schneiderman JS, Bouix S, Pasternak O, Rathi Y, et al. A review of magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging findings in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Imaging Behav. 2012;6:137–92.10.1007/s11682-012-9156-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[11] Huang MX, Theilmann RJ, Robb A, Angeles A, Nichols S, Drake A, et al. Integrated imaging approach with meg and dti to detect mild traumatic brain injury in military and civilian patients. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26:1213–26.10.1089/neu.2008.0672Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Jang SH, Kim SY. Injury of the corticospinal tract in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: a diffusion tensor tractography study. J Neurotrauma. 2016;33:1790–5.10.1089/neu.2015.4298Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Yang DS, Kwon HG, Jang SH. Injury of the thalamocingulate tract in the papez circuit in patients with mild traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;95:E34–E38.10.1097/PHM.0000000000000413Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Glass HC, Berman JI, Norcia AM, Rogers EE, Henry RG, Hou C, et al. Quantitative fiber tracking of the optic radiation is correlated with visual-evoked potential amplitude in preterm infants. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:1424–9.10.3174/ajnr.A2110Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] Hofer S, Karaus A, Frahm J. Reconstruction and dissection of the entire human visual pathway using diffusion tensor MRI. Front Neuroanat. 2010;4:15.10.3389/fnana.2010.00015Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] Staempfli P, Rienmueller A, Reischauer C, Valavanis A, Boesiger P, Kollias S. Reconstruction of the human visual system based on dti fiber tracking. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:886–93.10.1002/jmri.21098Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Seo JP, Choi BY, Chang CH, Jung YJ, Byun WM, Kim SH, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging findings of optic radiation in patients with putaminal hemorrhage. Eur Neurol. 2013;69:236–41.10.1159/000345271Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Taoka T, Sakamoto M, Nakagawa H, Nakase H, Iwasaki S, Takayama K, et al. Diffusion tensor tractography of the meyer loop in cases of temporal lobe resection for temporal lobe epilepsy: correlation between postsurgical visual field defect and anterior limit of meyer loop on tractography. AJNR Am J Neuroradio. 2008;29:1329–34.10.3174/ajnr.A1101Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[19] Yogarajah M, Focke NK, Bonelli S, Cercignani M, Acheson J, Parker GJ, et al. Defining meyer’s loop-temporal lobe resections, visual field deficits and diffusion tensor tractography. Brain. 2009;132:1656–68.10.1093/brain/awp114Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[20] Veeramuthu V, Narayanan V, Kuo TL, Delano-Wood L, Chinna K, Bondi MW, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging parameters in mild traumatic brain injury and its correlation with early neuropsychological impairment: a longitudinal study. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:1497–509.10.1089/neu.2014.3750Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[21] Alexander MP. Mild traumatic brain injury: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical management. Neurology. 1995;45:1253–60.10.1212/WNL.45.7.1253Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Liveson JA, Ma DM. Laboratory reference for clinical neurophysiology. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 1992.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Woolrich MW, Beckmann CF, Behrens TE, Johansen-Berg H, et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage. 2004;23(Suppl 1):S208–19.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Jiang H, van Zijl PC, Kim J, Pearlson GD, Mori S. Dtistudio: resource program for diffusion tensor computation and fiber bundle tracking. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2006;81:106–16.10.1016/j.cmpb.2005.08.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Evans JD. Straignt forward statistics for the behavioural science. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks, Cole Pub; 1996.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Assaf Y, Pasternak O. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based white matter mapping in brain research: a review. J Mol Neurosci. 2008;34:51–61.10.1007/s12031-007-0029-0Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Mori S, Crain BJ, Chacko VP, van Zijl PC. Three-dimensional tracking of axonal projections in the brain by magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol. 1999;45:265–9.10.1002/1531-8249(199902)45:2<265::AID-ANA21>3.0.CO;2-3Search in Google Scholar

[28] Neil JJ. Diffusion imaging concepts for clinicians. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:1–7.10.1002/jmri.21087Search in Google Scholar

[29] Pagani E, Agosta F, Rocca MA, Caputo D, Filippi M. Voxel-based analysis derived from fractional anisotropy images of white matter volume changes with aging. Neuroimage. 2008;41:657–67.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.021Search in Google Scholar

[30] Johnson VE, Stewart W, Smith DH. Axonal pathology in traumatic brain injury. Exp Neurol. 2013;246:35–43.10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.01.013Search in Google Scholar

[31] Povlishock JT. Traumatically induced axonal injury: pathogenesis and pathobiological implications. Brain Pathol. 1992;2:1–12.10.1111/j.1750-3639.1991.tb00050.xSearch in Google Scholar

[32] Alhilali LM, Yaeger K, Collins M, Fakhran S. Detection of central white matter injury underlying vestibulopathy after mild traumatic brain injury. Radiology. 2014;272:224–32.10.1148/radiol.14132670Search in Google Scholar

[33] Caeyenberghs K, Leemans A, Geurts M, Taymans T, Linden CV, Smits-Engelsman BCM, et al. Brain-behavior relationships in young traumatic brain injury patients: fractional anisotropy measures are highly correlated with dynamic visuomotor tracking performance. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:1472–82.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.017Search in Google Scholar

[34] Palmer HS, Garzon B, Xu J, Berntsen EM, Skandsen T, Haberg AK. Reduced fractional anisotropy does not change the shape of the hemodynamic response in survivors of severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27:853–62.10.1089/neu.2009.1225Search in Google Scholar

[35] Yeo SS, Kim SH, Kim OL, Kim MS, Jang SH. Optic radiation injury in a patient with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2012;26:891–5.10.3109/02699052.2012.661119Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] Lee SK, Kim DI, Kim J, Kim DJ, Kim HD, Kim DS, et al. Diffusion-tensor MR imaging and fiber tractography: a new method of describing aberrant fiber connections in developmental CNS anomalies. Radiographics. 2005;25:53–65.10.1148/rg.251045085Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Parker GJM, Alexander DC. Probabilistic anatomical connectivity derived from the microscopic persistent angular structure of cerebral tissue. Philos T R Soc B. 2005;360:893–902.10.1098/rstb.2005.1639Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Received: 2020-04-02

Revised: 2020-08-02

Accepted: 2020-08-23

Published Online: 2020-09-21

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2020-0108

Keywords for this article

diffusion tensor imaging; diffusion tensor tractography; optic radiation; visual evoked potential; mild traumatic brain injury; head trauma

Creative Commons

BY 4.0

No.	Age	Sex	Visual defect	Poor vision	Blurred vision
1	45	F	○	○
2	23	F			○
3	56	F	○
4	52	F		○	○
5	13	F	○	○
6	50	F	○	○
7	60	F		○	○
8	40	F		○
9	35	F	○	○
10	22	F	○	○
11	56	F	○	○
12	72	F		○
13	65	F	○	○
14	53	M	○	○
15	42	M	○	○
16	18	M	○	○	○
17	62	F	○	○	○
18	30	M	○	○
19	46	M	○	○
20	50	F	○	○
21	49	F	○	○
22	61	F	○
23	56	F	○	○
24	58	F	○	○
25	33	F		○
26	39	M	○	○	○
27	41	M	○	○
28	56	M	○	○
29	58	M	○	○
30	63	F	○	○
31	35	F	○	○
32	65	F	○	○
33	38	F	○	○
34	38	M		○
35	19	M		○
36	25	F		○
37	35	F		○
38	59	F	○	○
39	21	M	○	○
40	31	M		○
41	58	M	○	○
42	58	F	○	○
43	26	M		○
44	63	F	○	○
45	59	F	○	○
46	61	F		○
47	58	M		○	○
48	27	M	○	○
49	21	M	○	○
50	29	F	○	○	○
51	62	M		○
52	65	M		○

No.	Age	Sex	Visual defect	Poor vision	Blurred vision
1	45	F	○	○
2	23	F			○
3	56	F	○
4	52	F		○	○
5	13	F	○	○
6	50	F	○	○
7	60	F		○	○
8	40	F		○
9	35	F	○	○
10	22	F	○	○
11	56	F	○	○
12	72	F		○
13	65	F	○	○
14	53	M	○	○
15	42	M	○	○
16	18	M	○	○	○
17	62	F	○	○	○
18	30	M	○	○
19	46	M	○	○
20	50	F	○	○
21	49	F	○	○
22	61	F	○
23	56	F	○	○
24	58	F	○	○
25	33	F		○
26	39	M	○	○	○
27	41	M	○	○
28	56	M	○	○
29	58	M	○	○
30	63	F	○	○
31	35	F	○	○
32	65	F	○	○
33	38	F	○	○
34	38	M		○
35	19	M		○
36	25	F		○
37	35	F		○
38	59	F	○	○
39	21	M	○	○
40	31	M		○
41	58	M	○	○
42	58	F	○	○
43	26	M		○
44	63	F	○	○
45	59	F	○	○
46	61	F		○
47	58	M		○	○
48	27	M	○	○
49	21	M	○	○
50	29	F	○	○	○
51	62	M		○
52	65	M		○

No.	Age	Sex	Visual defect	Poor vision	Blurred vision
1	45	F	○	○
2	23	F			○
3	56	F	○
4	52	F		○	○
5	13	F	○	○
6	50	F	○	○
7	60	F		○	○
8	40	F		○
9	35	F	○	○
10	22	F	○	○
11	56	F	○	○
12	72	F		○
13	65	F	○	○
14	53	M	○	○
15	42	M	○	○
16	18	M	○	○	○
17	62	F	○	○	○
18	30	M	○	○
19	46	M	○	○
20	50	F	○	○
21	49	F	○	○
22	61	F	○
23	56	F	○	○
24	58	F	○	○
25	33	F		○
26	39	M	○	○	○
27	41	M	○	○
28	56	M	○	○
29	58	M	○	○
30	63	F	○	○
31	35	F	○	○
32	65	F	○	○
33	38	F	○	○
34	38	M		○
35	19	M		○
36	25	F		○
37	35	F		○
38	59	F	○	○
39	21	M	○	○
40	31	M		○
41	58	M	○	○
42	58	F	○	○
43	26	M		○
44	63	F	○	○
45	59	F	○	○
46	61	F		○
47	58	M		○	○
48	27	M	○	○
49	21	M	○	○
50	29	F	○	○	○
51	62	M		○
52	65	M		○