To determine the effectiveness of prism spectacles in people with age-related macular degeneration by relocating the retinal image. Methods: We implemented a randomized, placebocontrolled, double-masked trial. Participants with agerelated macular degeneration received a standard lowvision assessment and the prescription of conventional low-vision aids 6 weeks before the study intervention. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of the following, including the optimal refractive correction: (1) custom, incorporating bilateral prisms to match participants' preferred power and base direction; (2) standard, incorporating standard bilateral prisms (6 prism diopters [⌬] base up for logMAR [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution] visual acuity (VA) of 0.48-1.00 and 10⌬ base up for logMAR VA of 1.02-1.68); or (3) placebo, consisting of spectacles matched in weight and thickness to prism spectacles but without prism. Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes measured binocularly at baseline and 3-month follow-up included distance logMAR VA, reading speed, critical print size, visual functioning questionnaires, and observed visual task performance. Scores on the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire and the Melbourne Low-Vision ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Index were converted to linear estimates using Rasch analysis. The Manchester Low Vision Questionnaire was used to collect descriptive data. Results: A total of 225 participants completed the trial (median age, 81 years). We found no significant effect of treatment group on any of the outcome measures, including VA, the primary outcome (adjusted for baseline) (P = .63). Participants' responses to the Manchester Low Vision Questionnaire suggested that the prism spectacles added to their problems. Conclusions: Prism spectacles are no more effective than conventional spectacles for people with age-related macular degeneration.
Optimal prediction of reading speed with clinical parameters appears to be based on the combination of near word acuity and scotoma area, explaining 60% of the variance. Other factors not measured in this study are likely to account for the rest of the prediction.
Although the acuity measured under different stimulus conditions varies, the absolute differences are small. This suggests that these techniques would not be helpful in determining fixation characteristics, or predicting the outcome of rehabilitation in individual patients with AMD.
Purpose. To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK), measured by Diaton, Perkins, and noncontact air pulse tonometers. Methods. Fifty-seven patients with a mean age of 34.88 were scheduled for myopia LASIK treatment. Spherical equivalent refraction (SER), corneal curvature (K), and central corneal thickness (CCT) and superior corneal thickness (SCT) were obtained before and after LASIK surgery. IOP values before and after surgery were measured using Diaton, Perkins, and noncontact air pulse tonometers. Results. The IOP values before and after LASIK surgery using Perkins tonometer and air tonometers were statistically significant (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found (p > 0.05) for IOP values measured with Diaton tonometer. CCT decreases significantly after surgery (p < 0.05) but no statistical differences were found in SCT (p = 0.08). Correlations between pre- and postsurgery were found for all tonometers used, with p = 0.001 and r = 0.434 for the air pulse tonometer, p = 0.008 and r = 0.355 for Perkins, and p < 0.001 and r = 0.637 for Diaton. Conclusion. Transpalpebral tonometry may be useful for measuring postsurgery IOP after myopic LASIK ablation because this technique is not influenced by the treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.