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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |