A Comparison of Quantitative Pupillometry and VOMS in Division 1 Female Soccer Players.

John Duane Heick
{"title":"A Comparison of Quantitative Pupillometry and VOMS in Division 1 Female Soccer Players.","authors":"John Duane Heick","doi":"10.3390/medicina61061109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives:</i> Vision uses about half of the pathways within the brain, and these anatomical structures are susceptible to injury in concussion. Authors have suggested that subconcussive head impacts, common in soccer, may disrupt visual function. The following study aimed to explore and compare quantitative pupillometry and Vestibular Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) in female soccer athletes. <i>Materials and Methods:</i> Twenty-six Division 1 female soccer athletes (20.46 ± 2.36 years) received baseline quantitative pupillometry and VOMS measurements. <i>Results:</i> Of the 26 tested athletes, 3 (11.5%) had clinically significant pupillometry findings at baseline. The mean Neurological Pupil Index or NPi, a composite generated from pupillometry, did not vary: 3.9 ± 0.4 (right eye) and 4.0 ± 0.4 (left eye). No difference in NPi was observed compared to the VOMS score (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Kruskal-Wallis H tests were significant in the right eye for constriction percentage (<i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>(2) = 17.843, <i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>E</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.69) and minimum pupil size (<i>χ</i><sup>2</sup>(2) = 7.976, <i>p</i> = 0.019, <i>E</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.31). A post hoc Dunn test showed significant differences in constriction percentage and minimum pupil size between low NPi and high NPi groups (<i>p</i> < 0.05). One athlete sustained a concussion. NPi was measured within 24 h and was normal, but VOMS was not (total score = 4). <i>Conclusions:</i> The components of pupillometry need more investigation, and there is a need for agreement on concussion-specific cutoffs for quantitative pupillometry for concussion assessment. The lack of a relationship between quantitative pupillometry and VOMS suggests that these tools evaluate different constructs. Athletes with an NPi < 3.8 had significantly less constriction percentage and larger minimum pupil size than athletes with higher NPi scores. More research should be carried out to determine the usefulness of the NPi score, and perhaps researchers should consider individual pupillometry components.</p>","PeriodicalId":520709,"journal":{"name":"Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)","volume":"61 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12195313/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61061109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Vision uses about half of the pathways within the brain, and these anatomical structures are susceptible to injury in concussion. Authors have suggested that subconcussive head impacts, common in soccer, may disrupt visual function. The following study aimed to explore and compare quantitative pupillometry and Vestibular Ocular Motor Screening (VOMS) in female soccer athletes. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six Division 1 female soccer athletes (20.46 ± 2.36 years) received baseline quantitative pupillometry and VOMS measurements. Results: Of the 26 tested athletes, 3 (11.5%) had clinically significant pupillometry findings at baseline. The mean Neurological Pupil Index or NPi, a composite generated from pupillometry, did not vary: 3.9 ± 0.4 (right eye) and 4.0 ± 0.4 (left eye). No difference in NPi was observed compared to the VOMS score (p > 0.05). Kruskal-Wallis H tests were significant in the right eye for constriction percentage (χ2(2) = 17.843, p < 0.001, E2 = 0.69) and minimum pupil size (χ2(2) = 7.976, p = 0.019, E2 = 0.31). A post hoc Dunn test showed significant differences in constriction percentage and minimum pupil size between low NPi and high NPi groups (p < 0.05). One athlete sustained a concussion. NPi was measured within 24 h and was normal, but VOMS was not (total score = 4). Conclusions: The components of pupillometry need more investigation, and there is a need for agreement on concussion-specific cutoffs for quantitative pupillometry for concussion assessment. The lack of a relationship between quantitative pupillometry and VOMS suggests that these tools evaluate different constructs. Athletes with an NPi < 3.8 had significantly less constriction percentage and larger minimum pupil size than athletes with higher NPi scores. More research should be carried out to determine the usefulness of the NPi score, and perhaps researchers should consider individual pupillometry components.

女足甲级运动员定量瞳孔测量与VOMS的比较。
背景和目的:视觉使用了大脑中大约一半的通路,这些解剖结构容易受到脑震荡的伤害。作者认为,足球运动中常见的头部次震荡可能会破坏视觉功能。本研究旨在探讨和比较女子足球运动员定量瞳孔测量和前庭眼运动筛查(VOMS)。材料与方法:26名女子足球运动员(20.46±2.36岁)接受基线定量瞳孔测量和VOMS测量。结果:在26名接受测试的运动员中,3名(11.5%)在基线时具有临床显著的瞳孔测量结果。平均神经学瞳孔指数(NPi),由瞳孔测量产生的综合指数,没有变化:3.9±0.4(右眼)和4.0±0.4(左眼)。NPi与VOMS评分比较无差异(p < 0.05)。Kruskal-Wallis H检验在右眼收缩率(χ2(2) = 17.843, p < 0.001, E2 = 0.69)和最小瞳孔大小(χ2(2) = 7.976, p = 0.019, E2 = 0.31)上均有显著性差异。事后Dunn检验显示,低NPi组和高NPi组的收缩率和最小瞳孔大小差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。一名运动员遭受脑震荡。24 h内测NPi正常,VOMS异常(总分4分)。结论:瞳孔测量的组成部分需要更多的研究,并且需要在脑震荡评估定量瞳孔测量的特定阈值上达成一致。定量瞳孔测量和VOMS之间缺乏关系,这表明这些工具评估的是不同的结构。NPi值< 3.8的运动员收缩率显著低于NPi值较高的运动员,最小瞳孔尺寸显著大于NPi值较高的运动员。应该进行更多的研究来确定NPi评分的有用性,也许研究人员应该考虑个别瞳孔测量的组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信