Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2026
Driving Simulation in the Clinic: Testing Visual Exploratory Behavior in Daily Life Activities in Patients with Visual Field Defects
Published on: September 18, 2012
[Study of visual field and vigabatrin treatment in children]
B Pelosse1, M Momtchilova, A Roubergue
1Service d'Ophtalmologie, Hôpital d'Enfants Armand Trousseau.
Insights
Vigabatrin, an antiepileptic drug, can cause concentric visual field defects in children, similar to adults. Regular ophthalmological and ERG examinations are recommended for children on vigabatrin treatment.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Neurology
- Pharmacology
Context:
- Vigabatrin is a GABA mimetic antiepileptic agent.
- Concentric visual field defects are a known side effect in adults.
- Few cases have been reported in pediatric populations.
Purpose:
- To systematically examine visual fields in children treated with vigabatrin.
- To assess the incidence and characteristics of visual field defects in pediatric patients.
- To evaluate the impact of vigabatrin on visual function in children.
Summary:
- 14 children treated with vigabatrin underwent ophthalmological examinations.
- Visual field defects were observed in 6 children, with 4 severe cases.
- Electroretinography (ERG) revealed abnormalities in 3 children.
Impact:
- Visual field defects in children treated with vigabatrin mirror those seen in adults.
- The long-term effects and progression of these defects in children require further investigation.
- Routine ophthalmological and ERG screenings are crucial for early detection and management.
Introduction:
Concentric visual field defects have been described in association with vigabatrin, a GABA mimetic antiepileptic agent. Few cases have been reported in children.
Methods:
A systematic ophthalmological examination was performed in 14 children treated with vigabatrin for seizures. A manual kinetic perimetry test (Goldmann) was done in 11 cases. The ERG was recorded in the 3 cases where perimetry could not be done.
Results:
All children were asymptomatic. The mean age was 9.6 years. The mean duration of vigabatrin treatment was 41 months. The visual field was abnormal when central and peripheral fields were constricted. A visual field defect was discovered in 6 cases: 4 were severe, 2 were mild. When vigabatrin treatment was stopped, 1 case became worse, 1 case was slightly better, and 1 case remained stationary. A disturbed ERG was found in 3 children (depressed b-wave, raised a/b ratio).
Conclusion:
The visual field defects discovered in children treated with vigabatrin are similar to those described in adults. The incidence and progression of visual field constriction in children with and after vigabatrin treatment are not yet well known. Children treated with vigabatrin should therefore have systematic and regular ophthalmological perimetry, and ERG examinations.
