Astigmatism and vision:should all astigmatism always be corrected?

As technology and medical devices improve, there is much interest in when and how astigmatism should be corrected with refractive surgery. Astigmatism can be corrected by most forms of refractive surgery, such as using excimer lasers algorithms to ablate the cornea to compensate for the magnitude of refractive error in different meridians. Correction of astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery is well developed and can be achieved through incision placement, relaxing incisions and toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. This was less of an issue in the past when there was a lower expectation to be spectacle independent after cataract surgery, in which case the residual refractive error, including astigmatism, could be compensated for with spectacle lenses. The issue of whether presurgical astigmatism should be corrected can be considered separately depending on whether a patient has residual accommodation, and the type of refractive surgery under consideration. We have previously reported on the visual impact of full correction of astigmatism, rather than just correcting the mean spherical equivalent. Correction of astigmatism as low as 1.00 dioptres significantly improves objective and subjective measures of functional vision in prepresbyopes at distance and near.

Ocular motor triad with single vision contact lenses compared to spectacle lenses

Aim: Theoretically myopes are required to exert more accommodation and vergence when wearing single vision contact lenses compared to glasses and hypermetropes less. This study aims to quantify the effects clinically. Method: Thirty subjects (21 female, nine male, average age 21.0 ± 2.2 years) with a range of refractive errors (-7.87 D to +3.50 D) viewed in a random order, static targets at 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 D accommodative demand that were matched for angular subtense. The subjects were fully corrected with spectacles and daily disposable contact lenses to their full prescription. Accommodation was monitored objectively with the PowerRefractor and Shin-Nippon SRW5000 and vergence and pupil size with the PowerRefractor. Results: Myopes exerted greater accommodative effort for viewing near targets with contact lenses than glasses and hypermetropes less (r2 = 0.35, p = 0.001 PowerRefractor). Myopes also exerted greater vergence effort for viewing near targets with contact lenses than glasses and hypermetropes less (r2 = 0.22, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Theoretical calculation of the accommodative and vergence requirements with glasses compared to contact lenses reflect clinical findings, although there is reasonable variability between individuals. © 2006 British Contact Lens Association.

Benefits of electronic vision enhancement systems (EVES) for the visually impaired

PURPOSE: To examine whether objective performance of near tasks is improved with various electronic vision enhancement systems (EVES) compared with the subject's own optical magnifier. DESIGN: Experimental study, randomized, within-patient design. METHODS: This was a prospective study, conducted in a hospital ophthalmology low-vision clinic. The patient population comprised 70 sequential visually impaired subjects. The magnifying devices examined were: patient's optimum optical magnifier; magnification and field-of-view matched mouse EVES with monitor or head-mounted display (HMD) viewing; and stand EVES with monitor viewing. The tasks performed were: reading speed and acuity; time taken to track from one column of print to the next; follow a route map, and locate a specific feature; and identification of specific information from a medicine label. RESULTS: Mouse EVES with HMD viewing caused lower reading speeds than stand EVES with monitor viewing (F = 38.7, P < .001). Reading with the optical magnifier was slower than with the mouse or stand EVES with monitor viewing at smaller print sizes (P < .05). The column location task was faster with the optical magnifier than with any of the EVES (F = 10.3, P < .001). The map tracking and medicine label identification task was slower with the mouse EVES with HMD viewing than with the other magnifiers (P < .01). Previous EVES experience had no effect on task performance (P > .05), but subjects with previous optical magnifier experience were significantly slower at performing the medicine label identification task with all of the EVES (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although EVES provide objective benefits to the visually impaired in reading speed and acuity, together with some specific near tasks, some can be performed just as fast using optical magnification. © 2003 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

An update on the characteristics of patients attending the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic

BACKGROUND: Since 1972, the Australian College of Optometry has worked in partnership with Vision Australia to provide multidisciplinary low-vision care at the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic. In 1999, Wolffsohn and Cochrane reported on the demographic characteristics of patients attending Kooyong. Sixteen years on, the aim of this study is to review the demographics of the Kooyong patient cohort and prescribing patterns. METHODS: Records of all new patients (n = 155) attending the Kooyong Low Vision Clinic for optometry services between April and September 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Median age was 84.3 years (range 7.7 to 98.1 years) with 59 per cent female. The majority of patients presented with late-onset degenerative pathology, 49 per cent with a primary diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration. Many (47.1 per cent) lived with their families. Mean distance visual acuity was 0.57 ± 0.47 logMAR or approximately 6/24. The median spectacle-corrected near visual acuity was N8 (range N3 to worse than N80). Fifty patients (32.3 per cent) were prescribed new spectacles, 51 (32.9 per cent) low vision aids and five (8.3 per cent) were prescribed electronic magnification devices. Almost two-thirds (63.9 per cent) were referred for occupational therapy management and 12.3 per cent for orientation and mobility services. CONCLUSIONS: The profile of patients presenting for low-vision services at Kooyong is broadly similar to that identified in 1999. Outcomes appear to be similar, aside from an expected increase in electronic devices and technological solutions; however, the nature of services is changing, as treatments for ocular diseases advance and assistive technology develops and becomes more accessible. Alongside the aging population and age-related ocular disease being the predominant cause of low vision in Australia, the health-funding landscape is becoming more restrictive. The challenge for the future will be to provide timely, high-quality care in an economically efficient model.

Evaluation of low vision services on the quality of life of individuals with age-related macular degeneration

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is a major cause of irreversible visual loss in the elderly and a significant threat to their quality of life. Although low vision services often improve the functional outcomes of individuals with macular disease, it remains unclear whether or not they have any impact on quality of life. The principal aim of this study was to determine the effect of a hospital-based low vision clinic on the quality of life of individuals with ARMD. Methods: Forty patients with ARMD attended the low vision clinic at Milton Keynes University Hospital. Quality of life was measured with the vision-specific Low Vision Quality of Life (LVQOL) questionnaire and the general health EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Measures were completed at baseline (time zero, T0), and at three- (T3) and six-month (T6) follow-up visits. Results: The near visual acuity of individuals attending the low vision clinic for the first time improved significantly between visits T0 and T3 (p=0.005), reflecting the practiced use of their newly-dispensed low vision aids. As expected, there was no significant change in near acuity over this time period for existing patients. For both new and existing patients, a significant increase in LVQOL score was evident between visits T0 and T3, with a further significant improvement between T3 and T6. Similarly, there was a significant decrease in EQ-5D-5L questionnaire scores between visits T0 and T6. Conclusions: The higher LVQOL scores obtained at the end of the study period (T6) provide evidence that low vision services at Milton Keynes University Hospital served to improve patient quality of life. The reduction in EQ-5D-5L scores over the same time period suggests that low vision services also provide for an improvement in general health-related quality of life. Impact: The findings support the cause of low vision services to improve not only the vision and functional outcomes of individuals with macular disease but also their quality of life. Moreover, the findings suggest that a more efficient allocation of resources at low vision clinics may be possible through the standardisation of patient follow-up frequency.