Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products - A 6-year review

Bharat Gurnani; Kirandeep Kaur; Priya Sivakumar; Sahil Bhandari

doi:10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_253_21

Retrospective analysis of low vision assistive products - A 6-year review

Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2023 Mar 9;37(1):32-37. doi: 10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_253_21. eCollection 2023 Jan-Mar.

Authors

Bharat Gurnani¹, Kirandeep Kaur², Priya Sivakumar³, Sahil Bhandari⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Cataract, Cornea and Refractive Services, Aravind Eye Hospital, Puducherry, India.
² Department of Cataract, Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Services, Aravind Eye Hospital, Puducherry, India.
³ Department of Cataract, Neuro-Ophthalmology and Low Vision Services, Aravind Eye Hospital, Puducherry, India.
⁴ Department of Cataract and Vitreoretinal Services, Guru Hasti Chikitsalaya, Pipar City, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Acceptance rates; low vision; low vision assistive products; magnifiers.