Ferah Ozcelik1, Gamze Ozturk Karabulut1, Osman Bulut Ocak2,3. 1. Istanbul Beyoglu Eye Research and Training Hospital, Galata, 34421, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Istanbul Beyoglu Eye Research and Training Hospital, Galata, 34421, Istanbul, Turkey. bulutocak@gmail.com. 3. , Istanbul, Turkey. bulutocak@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of contact lens use with low vision aids (LVA) with the efficacy of spectacle use with low vision aids. METHODS: Thirty-six pediatric patients with low vision were enrolled in this study between January 2015 and March 2017. The patients were examined for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with spectacles, spectacles with LVA, contact lenses and contact lenses with LVA. Toleration of the patients with contact lenses and LVA were recorded at the final follow-up exam. RESULTS: The mean BCVA with spectacles was detected as 1.11 ± 0.25 log MAR and the mean BCVA improved to 0.35 ± 0.13 log MAR with the use of spectacles and LVA, which was statistically significant. The mean BCVA with contact lens, which was 0.99 ± 0.22 log MAR, improved to 0.40 ± 0.21 log MAR with contact lens and LVA, which was also significant. There was a statistically significant improvement in BCVA of the patients with contact lenses only when compared to spectacles only. The mean BCVA significantly improved in patients using LVA with contact lenses when compared to LVA with spectacles. Tolerations of the patients with contact lenses and LVA were found to be well at 29 of 36 (80.55%) at final follow-up (26.11 ± 6.85 months). CONCLUSION: Contact lens use in pediatric patients with low vision especially with LVA offers better visual acuity, a decrease in nystagmus amplitude, wider field of view and comfort.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of contact lens use with low vision aids (LVA) with the efficacy of spectacle use with low vision aids. METHODS: Thirty-six pediatric patients with low vision were enrolled in this study between January 2015 and March 2017. The patients were examined for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with spectacles, spectacles with LVA, contact lenses and contact lenses with LVA. Toleration of the patients with contact lenses and LVA were recorded at the final follow-up exam. RESULTS: The mean BCVA with spectacles was detected as 1.11 ± 0.25 log MAR and the mean BCVA improved to 0.35 ± 0.13 log MAR with the use of spectacles and LVA, which was statistically significant. The mean BCVA with contact lens, which was 0.99 ± 0.22 log MAR, improved to 0.40 ± 0.21 log MAR with contact lens and LVA, which was also significant. There was a statistically significant improvement in BCVA of the patients with contact lenses only when compared to spectacles only. The mean BCVA significantly improved in patients using LVA with contact lenses when compared to LVA with spectacles. Tolerations of the patients with contact lenses and LVA were found to be well at 29 of 36 (80.55%) at final follow-up (26.11 ± 6.85 months). CONCLUSION: Contact lens use in pediatric patients with low vision especially with LVA offers better visual acuity, a decrease in nystagmus amplitude, wider field of view and comfort.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contact lenses; Contact lenses in children; Low vision; Low vision aids