June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Preference pattern of low vision aids in glaucoma-redefining guidelines
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Aparna Rao
    Glaucoma Services, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Patia, India, Bhubaneswar, India
  • Sirajum Monira
    Glaucoma Services, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Patia, India, Bhubaneswar, India
  • Mahasweta Chowdhury
    Glaucoma Services, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Patia, India, Bhubaneswar, India
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Aparna Rao, None; Sirajum Monira, None; Mahasweta Chowdhury, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 2777. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Aparna Rao, Sirajum Monira, Mahasweta Chowdhury; Preference pattern of low vision aids in glaucoma-redefining guidelines. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):2777.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: To evaluate preference pattern of low vision devices (LVD) in patients with glaucoma to arrive at specific guidelines for prescribing these devices with regards to specific visual disabilities.

Methods: Retrospective review of records of glaucoma patients attending low vision services. Criteria for low vision was defined as best corrected distance visual acuity <20/80 in the better eye with Log mar chart and/or near visual acuity <N10 binocularly with Bailey Lovie word reading chart and/or visual field 20degrees or <20 degrees from the point of fixation. The data collected for each patient included the age, gender, diagnosis, extent of visual field loss (mean deviation and central residual field of vision), type of visual disability and the type of low vision aid (optical vs electronic) preferred by the patients for daily routine use.

Results: The mean age of the 51 patients was 51±23.4 (9-83 years) which included 14 females (27.5%) and 37(72.5%) males, 14 developmental (27.5%), 8 PACG (15.7%) and 29 POAG (56.8%). While 34 (77%) opted for optical devices, 17 opted for electronic devices. There was no statistical difference in preference of LVD among the two sexes or between patients with different level of education (undergraduate or postgraduate or different distance or low contrast visual acuity. On univariate analysis, younger age, magnification>5x, color matching disabilities and glare were found to significantly influence preference for electronic devices while on multivariate regression, age <30 years (β=-0.04, p=0.005), color matching disability (β=3.08, p=0.002), glare (β=2.04, p<0.001) were significant influences for preference for electronic LVD. There was no specific preference pattern for preference of optical magnifiers in this study.

Conclusions: Younger patients <30 years with glare and color contrast impairment may be prescribed electronic low vision devices for optimal visual function as compared to optical devices. Glare measurement and color matching disability may be added as parameters for assessing visual functions routinely in patients with advanced glaucoma.

Keywords: 584 low vision  

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.