E K Altpeter1, N X Nguyen2. 1. Sehbehindertenambulanz der Universitäts-Augenklinik, Tübingen, Deutschland. elke.altpeter@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Sehbehindertenambulanz der Universitäts-Augenklinik, Tübingen, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate if there has been a change in requirements for low vision magnification aids in recent years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The collective data from age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients from the Tübingen low vision clinic from the years 2007-2011 were compared with the patient collective from the years 1999-2005. Magnification needs and the prescribed magnifying aids for reading in the categories magnifying spectacles, hand-held magnifiers, monocular telescopes, electronic magnifiers and electronic reading devices were evaluated. In addition patients from 2010 and 2011 were divided into dry and neovascular AMD and the prescribed magnification aids were compared for these AMD forms. RESULTS: There was no significant change in in the prescribed magnification reading aids for AMD patients between the years 1999-2005 and 2007-2011. An electronic magnifier was prescribed most often (both collectives 43 %), followed by hand-held magnifiers (32 and 29.5 %, respectively) and magnifying spectacles (17 and 18.8 %, respectively). Also the magnifying needs and mean age of the AMD patients did not change significantly between the two periods (2007-2011 versus 1999-2005). The detailed analysis for dry and neovascular AMD for the years 2010 and 2011 showed no significant differences for the most commonly prescribed low vision aids. The prescription of low vision aids is not influenced by the AMD classification (dry or neovascular), only by the magnification needs. CONCLUSION: There is an unchanged and still high demand for rehabilitation aids of AMD patients, for dry as well as for neovascular AMD even after the introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate if there has been a change in requirements for low vision magnification aids in recent years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The collective data from age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients from the Tübingen low vision clinic from the years 2007-2011 were compared with the patient collective from the years 1999-2005. Magnification needs and the prescribed magnifying aids for reading in the categories magnifying spectacles, hand-held magnifiers, monocular telescopes, electronic magnifiers and electronic reading devices were evaluated. In addition patients from 2010 and 2011 were divided into dry and neovascular AMD and the prescribed magnification aids were compared for these AMD forms. RESULTS: There was no significant change in in the prescribed magnification reading aids for AMDpatients between the years 1999-2005 and 2007-2011. An electronic magnifier was prescribed most often (both collectives 43 %), followed by hand-held magnifiers (32 and 29.5 %, respectively) and magnifying spectacles (17 and 18.8 %, respectively). Also the magnifying needs and mean age of the AMDpatients did not change significantly between the two periods (2007-2011 versus 1999-2005). The detailed analysis for dry and neovascular AMD for the years 2010 and 2011 showed no significant differences for the most commonly prescribed low vision aids. The prescription of low vision aids is not influenced by the AMD classification (dry or neovascular), only by the magnification needs. CONCLUSION: There is an unchanged and still high demand for rehabilitation aids of AMDpatients, for dry as well as for neovascular AMD even after the introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy.
Authors: B L Brody; A C Gamst; R A Williams; A R Smith; P W Lau; D Dolnak; M H Rapaport; R M Kaplan; S I Brown Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 12.079