Prescribing patterns of low vision devices in patients with cone-related dystrophies

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to elucidate the type of low vision devices (LVDs) prescribed for patients with cone dystrophy, cone–rod dystrophy, and rod–cone dystrophy and to analyze the visual improvement with the devices. Methods: A retrospective review of 300 electronic medical records of patients with cone dystrophy, cone–rod dystrophy, and rod–cone dystrophy referred to the low vision care (LVC) clinic for the first time between 2014 and 2016 at a tertiary eye care center was done. Collected data included the demographic profile of patients, details of LVDs, and best-corrected vision. Results: Out of 300 patients, 62.6% ( n = 188) were male and 37.3% ( n = 112) were female. Of the cases, 50% ( n = 150) had cone–rod dystrophy, 45% ( n = 135) had cone dystrophy, and 5% ( n = 15) had rod–cone dystrophy. The most commonly prescribed LVD was SEE-TV binocular telescope ( n = 6, 2.0%) for distance and dome magnifier ( n = 60, 20%) for near. ET-40 dark grey tint (20.6%) was preferred for managing photophobia. There was a statistically significant difference in both distance and near visual acuities with LVDs ( P < 0.05) in all categories, except rod–cone dystrophy. Conclusion: Early diagnosis with appropriate prescription of LVDs including tints helps in achieving good quality of vision in patients with cone-related dystrophies.

Commentary: Low vision devices are boon to patients with visual impairment due to retinal dystrophies

“…The recent article on LVD for patients with retinal dystrophies describes the best-suited optical aids and the improvement in visual acuity they offer. [ 2 ] The article emphasizes the fact that there are no standard diagnosis-based guidelines for the prescription of LVD and that they largely depend on patients’ unmet visual needs and presenting profiles. [ 2 ] The strength of this paper is that it addresses the commonly suited optical aids for both near and distant visual acuity in this specific group of patients.…”

“…[ 2 ] The article emphasizes the fact that there are no standard diagnosis-based guidelines for the prescription of LVD and that they largely depend on patients’ unmet visual needs and presenting profiles. [ 2 ] The strength of this paper is that it addresses the commonly suited optical aids for both near and distant visual acuity in this specific group of patients. [ 2 ] The sample size included is substantial for assessing and analyzing the effect of LVD, which is a rare find.…”

“…[ 2 ] The strength of this paper is that it addresses the commonly suited optical aids for both near and distant visual acuity in this specific group of patients. [ 2 ] The sample size included is substantial for assessing and analyzing the effect of LVD, which is a rare find. [ 2 ] The assessment techniques used by the authors include a high-low contrast Bailey Lovie chart for distance visual acuity, and minnesota low vision reading (MNREAD) charts for near visual acuity, which differ significantly from the standard evaluation methods.…”

“…[ 2 ] The sample size included is substantial for assessing and analyzing the effect of LVD, which is a rare find. [ 2 ] The assessment techniques used by the authors include a high-low contrast Bailey Lovie chart for distance visual acuity, and minnesota low vision reading (MNREAD) charts for near visual acuity, which differ significantly from the standard evaluation methods. [ 2 ] The need for best correction, uniocular and binocular continuous reading charts are preferable when evaluating patients with VI.…”

“…[ 3 ] Most of the literature on VI includes the elderly population, whereas the present article has included mostly young adults and children. [ 2 ] The impact of VI on the younger population has a maximum bearing on society and well as negatively influences the quality of life in these persons. Rehabilitation in the early years will provide independence and mainstreaming in these patients.…”