ABSTRACT
Visual acuity is the measurement of an individual's ability to recognize details of an object in a space. Visual function measurements in clinical ophthalmology are limited by factors such as maximum contrast and so it might not adequately reflect the real vision conditions at that moment as well as the subjective aspects of the world perception by the patient. The objective of a successful vision-restoring surgery lies not only in gaining visual acuity lines, but also in vision quality. Therefore, refractive and cataract surgeries have the responsibility of achieving quality results. It is difficult to define quality of vision by a single parameter, and the main functional-vision tests are: contrast sensitivity, disability glare, intraocular stray light and aberrometry. In the current review the different components of the visual function are explained and the several available methods to assess the vision quality are described.
Qualidade Visual é a medida da capacidade individual de reconhecer detalhes de um objeto no espaço. Medições de função visual na clínica oftalmológica são limitadas por vários fatores, tal como máximo contraste e assim podem não refletir adequadamente as condições visuais reais, bem como os aspectos subjetivos da percepção do mundo pelo paciente. O sucesso em uma cirurgia está não apenas em restaurar linhas de visão, mas sim qualidade visual. Portanto, as cirurgias refrativas e de catarata têm a responsabilidade de alcançar resultados de qualidade. É difícil definir qualidade visual por um único parâmetro, sendo os principais testes de função visual: sensibilidade ao contraste; glare; dispersão intraocular da luz e aberrometria. Nesta revisão os diferentes componentes da função visual são explicados e os diversos métodos disponíveis para se avaliar a qualidade de visão são descritos.
Subject(s)
Humans , Cataract Extraction/rehabilitation , Vision Tests/methods , Vision, Ocular/physiology , Visual Acuity/physiology , Aberrometry , Glare , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the governmental costs of patients undergoing phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract extraction at a public hospital in a developing country. METHODS: A prospective study was conduced with 205 patients. The subjects were randomized for cataract surgery using either phacoemulsification or extracapsular cataract extraction techniques. RESULTS: Of the 205 patients, 101 patients were submitted to phacoemulsificationand 104 patients were submitted to extracapsular cataract extraction. Brazilian Health Care System expenditures for the surgery and the postoperative period were US$ 95.49 more in the phacoemulsification group than in the extracapsular cataract extractiongroup. If we take into account Social Security expenditures, then we estimate that the average difference for the total direct cost for the government for the surgery and the postoperative period for both procedures was US$ 50.91 or approximately half of the initial difference in cost for the phacoemulsification surgery. The total cost of cataract surgery for the government (excluding social security) was estimated at US$ 258.79 for extracapsular cataract extraction and US$ 309.70 for phacoemulsification per patient. Focusing only on working patients, the total cost was US$ 342.21 for phacoemulsification and US$ 587.71 for extracapsular cataract extraction, a difference of US$ 245.50. This difference can be considered monetarily and socially justifiable when the benefits of the surgical technique are evaluated. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, we observed that phacoemulsification was an efficient procedure with regard to the impact on public health care system, when all costs are assessed comprehensively, mainly for subjects with regular jobs.