Cargando…

Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to estimate the profile of patients visiting low vision care clinic at a tertiary eye care center in India and to analyze the preference of low vision devices (LVD). METHODS: A retrospective review was done for 450 patients with low vision who were referred t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gopalakrishnan, Sarika, Paramasivan, Gaurav, Sathyaprasath, Mathangi, Raman, Rajiv
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9266478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35814995
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_164_21
_version_ 1784743485286383616
author Gopalakrishnan, Sarika
Paramasivan, Gaurav
Sathyaprasath, Mathangi
Raman, Rajiv
author_facet Gopalakrishnan, Sarika
Paramasivan, Gaurav
Sathyaprasath, Mathangi
Raman, Rajiv
author_sort Gopalakrishnan, Sarika
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to estimate the profile of patients visiting low vision care clinic at a tertiary eye care center in India and to analyze the preference of low vision devices (LVD). METHODS: A retrospective review was done for 450 patients with low vision who were referred to the LVC clinic from January 2019 to December 2019. The participants were categorized into two groups as central field loss (CFL) and peripheral field loss (PFL). Demographic profile details and low vision device preference were documented. RESULTS: Out of 450 patients, 242 (53.8%) were diagnosed to have CFL and 208 (46.2%) had PFL. The median age of the overall patients was 34.5 years. Overall, 323 (71.8%) were men and 127 (28.2%) were women. Cone dystrophy (21.1%) was the major cause of low vision among atrophic changes (54.1%) in CFL, and retinitis pigmentosa (81.2%) was the majority in retina related changes (81.7%) in PFL. Overall, 71.3% of the low vision patients preferred LVD. CFL group (76%) preferred LVD more than PFL group (65.9%). Almost 34% of the patients in both CFL and PFL group have preferred half eyes and Ashperics, followed by 32.5% in CFL and 28.1% in PFL preferred dome magnifiers. Statistically significant improvement in distance and near vision with the help of LVD was noted. CONCLUSION: The use of LVD can help patients with low vision in restoring useful vision, where medical and surgical treatment have no or a limited role.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9266478
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92664782022-07-09 Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss Gopalakrishnan, Sarika Paramasivan, Gaurav Sathyaprasath, Mathangi Raman, Rajiv Saudi J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to estimate the profile of patients visiting low vision care clinic at a tertiary eye care center in India and to analyze the preference of low vision devices (LVD). METHODS: A retrospective review was done for 450 patients with low vision who were referred to the LVC clinic from January 2019 to December 2019. The participants were categorized into two groups as central field loss (CFL) and peripheral field loss (PFL). Demographic profile details and low vision device preference were documented. RESULTS: Out of 450 patients, 242 (53.8%) were diagnosed to have CFL and 208 (46.2%) had PFL. The median age of the overall patients was 34.5 years. Overall, 323 (71.8%) were men and 127 (28.2%) were women. Cone dystrophy (21.1%) was the major cause of low vision among atrophic changes (54.1%) in CFL, and retinitis pigmentosa (81.2%) was the majority in retina related changes (81.7%) in PFL. Overall, 71.3% of the low vision patients preferred LVD. CFL group (76%) preferred LVD more than PFL group (65.9%). Almost 34% of the patients in both CFL and PFL group have preferred half eyes and Ashperics, followed by 32.5% in CFL and 28.1% in PFL preferred dome magnifiers. Statistically significant improvement in distance and near vision with the help of LVD was noted. CONCLUSION: The use of LVD can help patients with low vision in restoring useful vision, where medical and surgical treatment have no or a limited role. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9266478/ /pubmed/35814995 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_164_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 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
Gopalakrishnan, Sarika
Paramasivan, Gaurav
Sathyaprasath, Mathangi
Raman, Rajiv
Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss
title Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss
title_full Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss
title_fullStr Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss
title_full_unstemmed Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss
title_short Preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss
title_sort preference of low vision devices in patients with central field loss and peripheral field loss
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9266478/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35814995
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_164_21
work_keys_str_mv AT gopalakrishnansarika preferenceoflowvisiondevicesinpatientswithcentralfieldlossandperipheralfieldloss
AT paramasivangaurav preferenceoflowvisiondevicesinpatientswithcentralfieldlossandperipheralfieldloss
AT sathyaprasathmathangi preferenceoflowvisiondevicesinpatientswithcentralfieldlossandperipheralfieldloss
AT ramanrajiv preferenceoflowvisiondevicesinpatientswithcentralfieldlossandperipheralfieldloss