Cargando…

Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to analyze the demographics, visual acuity (VA), etiologies, recommended low vision assistive products (LVAP), and the acceptance rates of LVAP in various age groups. METHODS: This was a long-term retrospective review of all the patients presenting to the low vi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gurnani, Bharat, Kaur, Kirandeep, Sivakumar, Priya, Bhandari, Sahil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10032285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36968774
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_253_21
_version_ 1784910766139244544
author Gurnani, Bharat
Kaur, Kirandeep
Sivakumar, Priya
Bhandari, Sahil
author_facet Gurnani, Bharat
Kaur, Kirandeep
Sivakumar, Priya
Bhandari, Sahil
author_sort Gurnani, Bharat
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to analyze the demographics, visual acuity (VA), etiologies, recommended low vision assistive products (LVAP), and the acceptance rates of LVAP in various age groups. METHODS: This was a long-term retrospective review of all the patients presenting to the low vision clinic of our tertiary eye care hospital from January 2011 to December 2016. Data obtained included age, gender, VA, visual fields, ocular pathology causing the low vision, and types of LVAP advised. The primary outcome was to analyze the type of LVAP prescribed in different age groups, and the secondary outcome was the acceptance rate of LVAP. RESULTS: We analyzed the results of 8309 patients, out of which 2844 (34%. 2) were <15 years of age, 2425 (29.5%) were between 16-40 years, and 3013 (36.3%) were above 40 years. A total of 5522 (66.4%) had best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ranging from 6/18-3/60, and 2796 (33.6%) had BCVA from 3/60-No PL. Approximately 38% improved with LVAPs. The most common etiology was retinitis pigmentosa in 1545 (18.6%) patients, followed by congenital nystagmus in 1482 (17.8%), and the least was albinism 383 (4.6%). Maximum prescribed and accepted LVAP were hand and stand magnifiers among 1017 (44.3%) and 512 (52.6%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Products that are easy to use, require lesser adaptability, are cheap, and require lower maintenance have maximum acceptance rates. We suggest that great emphasis should be laid on training, education, and guidance for low vision rehabilitation centers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10032285
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100322852023-03-23 Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review Gurnani, Bharat Kaur, Kirandeep Sivakumar, Priya Bhandari, Sahil Saudi J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to analyze the demographics, visual acuity (VA), etiologies, recommended low vision assistive products (LVAP), and the acceptance rates of LVAP in various age groups. METHODS: This was a long-term retrospective review of all the patients presenting to the low vision clinic of our tertiary eye care hospital from January 2011 to December 2016. Data obtained included age, gender, VA, visual fields, ocular pathology causing the low vision, and types of LVAP advised. The primary outcome was to analyze the type of LVAP prescribed in different age groups, and the secondary outcome was the acceptance rate of LVAP. RESULTS: We analyzed the results of 8309 patients, out of which 2844 (34%. 2) were <15 years of age, 2425 (29.5%) were between 16-40 years, and 3013 (36.3%) were above 40 years. A total of 5522 (66.4%) had best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ranging from 6/18-3/60, and 2796 (33.6%) had BCVA from 3/60-No PL. Approximately 38% improved with LVAPs. The most common etiology was retinitis pigmentosa in 1545 (18.6%) patients, followed by congenital nystagmus in 1482 (17.8%), and the least was albinism 383 (4.6%). Maximum prescribed and accepted LVAP were hand and stand magnifiers among 1017 (44.3%) and 512 (52.6%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Products that are easy to use, require lesser adaptability, are cheap, and require lower maintenance have maximum acceptance rates. We suggest that great emphasis should be laid on training, education, and guidance for low vision rehabilitation centers. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10032285/ /pubmed/36968774 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_253_21 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gurnani, Bharat
Kaur, Kirandeep
Sivakumar, Priya
Bhandari, Sahil
Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review
title Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review
title_full Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review
title_fullStr Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review
title_full_unstemmed Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review
title_short Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – A 6-year review
title_sort retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products – a 6-year review
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10032285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36968774
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_253_21
work_keys_str_mv AT gurnanibharat retrospectiveanalysisoflowvisionassistiveproductsa6yearreview
AT kaurkirandeep retrospectiveanalysisoflowvisionassistiveproductsa6yearreview
AT sivakumarpriya retrospectiveanalysisoflowvisionassistiveproductsa6yearreview
AT bhandarisahil retrospectiveanalysisoflowvisionassistiveproductsa6yearreview