Duane R Geruschat1, Marshall Flax2, Nilima Tanna3, Michelle Bianchi4, Andy Fisher5, Mira Goldschmidt6, Lynne Fisher5, Gislin Dagnelie7, Jim Deremeik7, Audrey Smith8, Fatima Anaflous6, Jessy Dorn9. 1. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. dgeruschat@jhmi.edu. 2. Wisconsin Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Hoover low vision rehabilitation services, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Focal Point, Bristol, UK. 6. Lausanne, Switzerland. 7. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. College of Education and Rehabilitation, Salus University, Pennsylvania, USA. 9. Second Sight Medical Products, Sylmar, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research groups and funding agencies need a functional assessment suitable for an ultra-low vision population to evaluate the impact of new vision-restoration treatments. The purpose of this study was to develop a pilot assessment to capture the functional visual ability and well-being of subjects whose vision has been partially restored with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System. METHODS: The Functional Low-Vision Observer Rated Assessment (FLORA) pilot assessment involved a self-report section, a list of functional visual tasks for observation of performance and a case narrative summary. Results were analysed to determine whether the interview questions and functional visual tasks were appropriate for this ultra-low vision population and whether the ratings suffered from floor or ceiling effects. Thirty subjects with severe to profound retinitis pigmentosa (bare light perception or worse in both eyes) were enrolled in a clinical trial and implanted with the Argus II System. From this population, 26 subjects were assessed with the FLORA. Seven different evaluators administered the assessment. RESULTS: All 14 interview questions were asked. All 35 tasks for functional vision were selected for evaluation at least once, with an average of 20 subjects being evaluated for each test item. All four rating options—impossible (33 per cent), difficult (23 per cent), moderate (24 per cent) and easy (19 per cent)—were used by the evaluators. Evaluators also judged the amount of vision they observed the subjects using to complete the various tasks, with 'vision only' occurring 75 per cent on average with the System ON, and 29 per cent with the System OFF. CONCLUSION: The first version of the FLORA was found to contain useful elements for evaluation and to avoid floor and ceiling effects. The next phase of development will be to refine the assessment and to establish reliability and validity to increase its value as an assessment tool for functional vision and well-being.
BACKGROUND: Research groups and funding agencies need a functional assessment suitable for an ultra-low vision population to evaluate the impact of new vision-restoration treatments. The purpose of this study was to develop a pilot assessment to capture the functional visual ability and well-being of subjects whose vision has been partially restored with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System. METHODS: The Functional Low-Vision Observer Rated Assessment (FLORA) pilot assessment involved a self-report section, a list of functional visual tasks for observation of performance and a case narrative summary. Results were analysed to determine whether the interview questions and functional visual tasks were appropriate for this ultra-low vision population and whether the ratings suffered from floor or ceiling effects. Thirty subjects with severe to profound retinitis pigmentosa (bare light perception or worse in both eyes) were enrolled in a clinical trial and implanted with the Argus II System. From this population, 26 subjects were assessed with the FLORA. Seven different evaluators administered the assessment. RESULTS: All 14 interview questions were asked. All 35 tasks for functional vision were selected for evaluation at least once, with an average of 20 subjects being evaluated for each test item. All four rating options—impossible (33 per cent), difficult (23 per cent), moderate (24 per cent) and easy (19 per cent)—were used by the evaluators. Evaluators also judged the amount of vision they observed the subjects using to complete the various tasks, with 'vision only' occurring 75 per cent on average with the System ON, and 29 per cent with the System OFF. CONCLUSION: The first version of the FLORA was found to contain useful elements for evaluation and to avoid floor and ceiling effects. The next phase of development will be to refine the assessment and to establish reliability and validity to increase its value as an assessment tool for functional vision and well-being.
Authors: Mark S Humayun; Jessy D Dorn; Lyndon da Cruz; Gislin Dagnelie; José-Alain Sahel; Paulo E Stanga; Artur V Cideciyan; Jacque L Duncan; Dean Eliott; Eugene Filley; Allen C Ho; Arturo Santos; Avinoam B Safran; Aries Arditi; Lucian V Del Priore; Robert J Greenberg Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Norman D Radtke; Robert B Aramant; Heywood M Petry; Parke T Green; Diane J Pidwell; Magdalene J Seiler Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Lauren N Ayton; Joseph F Rizzo; Ian L Bailey; August Colenbrander; Gislin Dagnelie; Duane R Geruschat; Philip C Hessburg; Chris D McCarthy; Matthew A Petoe; Gary S Rubin; Philip R Troyk Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Lyndon da Cruz; Jessy D Dorn; Mark S Humayun; Gislin Dagnelie; James Handa; Pierre-Olivier Barale; José-Alain Sahel; Paulo E Stanga; Farhad Hafezi; Avinoam B Safran; Joel Salzmann; Arturo Santos; David Birch; Rand Spencer; Artur V Cideciyan; Eugene de Juan; Jacque L Duncan; Dean Eliott; Amani Fawzi; Lisa C Olmos de Koo; Allen C Ho; Gary Brown; Julia Haller; Carl Regillo; Lucian V Del Priore; Aries Arditi; Robert J Greenberg Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Lauren N Ayton; Nick Barnes; Gislin Dagnelie; Takashi Fujikado; Georges Goetz; Ralf Hornig; Bryan W Jones; Mahiul M K Muqit; Daniel L Rathbun; Katarina Stingl; James D Weiland; Matthew A Petoe Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Devon H Ghodasra; Adrienne Chen; J Fernando Arevalo; David G Birch; Kari Branham; Brian Coley; Gislin Dagnelie; Eugene de Juan; Robert G Devenyi; Jessy D Dorn; Andy Fisher; Duane R Geruschat; Ninel Z Gregori; Robert J Greenberg; Paul Hahn; Allen C Ho; Ashley Howson; Suber S Huang; Raymond Iezzi; Naheed Khan; Byron L Lam; Jennifer I Lim; Kirsten G Locke; Michelle Markowitz; Anne-Marie Ripley; Mark Rankin; Hannah Schimitzek; Fay Tripp; James D Weiland; Jiong Yan; David N Zacks; K Thiran Jayasundera Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Philip M Lewis; Lauren N Ayton; Robyn H Guymer; Arthur J Lowery; Peter J Blamey; Penelope J Allen; Chi D Luu; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 1.872
Authors: Alejandro J Roman; Artur V Cideciyan; Rodrigo Matsui; Rebecca Sheplock; Sharon B Schwartz; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 2.209