Long-Term Evaluation of Eccentric Viewing Spectacles in Patients With Bilateral Central Scotomas

Verezen, C.A.; Meulendijks, C.F.M.; Hoyng, Carel B.; Klevering, B. Jeroen

doi:10.1097/01.opx.0000200679.81892.d4

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an alternative approach, clinical success , can be defined in much the same way as “effectiveness”, i.e., does an intervention have the intended effect under normal, everyday use of the treatment?16, 17 Many issues beyond measures of intended effect can contribute to the value of the treatment. Since the efficacy of many low-vision devices and refractive error corrections can be easily demonstrated (such as with contact lenses, where visual acuity improvement is trivial to show), clinical success has been assessed by measuring the continued use by the patients 18–24. Similarly, continued smoking cessation25 and continued weight maintenance/loss26 have been used as measures of real world effectiveness of treatment intervention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation of Peripheral Prism Glasses for Hemianopia

Giorgi¹,

Woods²,

Peli³

2009

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Homonymous hemianopia (the loss of vision on the same side in each eye) impairs the ability to navigate and walk safely. We evaluated peripheral prism glasses as a low vision optical device for hemianopia in an extended wearing trial. Methods Twenty-three patients with complete hemianopia (13 right) with neither visual neglect nor cognitive deficit enrolled in the 5-visit study. To expand the horizontal visual field, patients’ spectacles were fitted with both upper and lower Press-On™ Fresnel prism segments (each 40 prism diopters) across the upper and lower portions of the lens on the hemianopic (“blind”) side. Patients were asked to wear these spectacles as much as possible for the duration of the study, which averaged 9 (range: 5 to 13) weeks. Clinical success (continued wear, indicating perceived overall benefit), visual field expansion, perceived direction and perceived quality of life were measured. Results Clinical Success: 14 of 21 (67%) patients chose to continue to wear the peripheral prism glasses at the end of the study (2 patients did not complete the study for non-vision reasons). At long-term follow-up (8 to 51 months), 5 of 12 (42%) patients reported still wearing the device. Visual Field Expansion: Expansion of about 22 degrees in both the upper and lower quadrants was demonstrated for all patients (binocular perimetry, Goldmann V4e). Perceived Direction: Two patients demonstrated a transient adaptation to the change in visual direction produced by the peripheral prism glasses. Quality of Life: At study end, reduced difficulty noticing obstacles on the hemianopic side was reported. Conclusions The peripheral prism glasses provided reported benefits (usually in obstacle avoidance) to 2/3 of the patients completing the study, a very good success rate for a vision rehabilitation device. Possible reasons for long-term discontinuation and limited adaptation of perceived direction are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation of Peripheral Prism Glasses for Hemianopia

Giorgi¹,

Woods²,

Peli³

2009

Optometry and Vision Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the exception of two studies (Smith et al. 2005; Verezen et al. 2006), compliance in wearing the glasses was high (75.8%/31.5, mean/SD).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…One study (Verezen et al. 2006) included in fact two separate studies and as such each was reported and analysed separately (Verezen et al. 2006; Verezen et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The methodology used by various authors was far from uniform, and all studies are flawed, some more, some less. Studies were mostly prospective with the exception of two retrospective studies (Al‐Karmi & Markowitz 2006; Verezen et al. 2006).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1996, 2006; Smith et al. 2005), face recognition (Verezen et al. 1996, 2006) or better contrast identification (Bertrand et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use of prisms for vision rehabilitation after macular function loss: an evidence‐based review

Markowitz¹,

Reyes²,

Sheng³

2012

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. To determine the efficacy of prisms used for redirection of incoming images towards the peripheral retina in cases with macular function loss. Meta‐analysis of published work reporting outcomes from interventions using prisms was performed. The primary outcome measure selected for analysis was visual acuity (VA) used for viewing distance targets. Pooled data from 449 cases where prisms were prescribed for wearing in distance glasses were analysed. Visual acuity was better after using prisms (1.05 versus 0.89 logMAR units, p < 0.044). Mean effect size for improving VA was 79 bigger than the effect size calculated for the control group (0.158 versus 0.002). Most patients (76%) reported compliance with the therapy and also reported other benefits directly derived from the realized VA improvement. Published studies collectively offer positive evidence in support of using prisms for low vision rehabilitation after macular function loss. Further research is required to reach definitive binding conclusions.

show abstract