Quality of life and vision assessment with scleral lenses in keratoconus.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the visual outcomes and improvement in quality of life (QOL) of patients with keratoconus with scleral lenses. METHODS: In this prospective study, 14 patients (28 eyes) with bilateral keratoconus were fitted with scleral lenses (McAsfeer 16.00 mm) in Pune city, Maharashtra, India. Uncorrected visual acuity (VA), best spectacle-corrected VA, and VA with scleral lenses were evaluated. The patients were given the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) for judging the QOL, before and after using scleral lenses for 3 months. RESULTS: The mean uncorrected VA of the 14 patients with a mean age of 28.64 ± 6.57 years was 1.18 ± 0.19 logMAR. Best spectacle-corrected high-contrast VA improved from 0.47 ± 0.25 logMAR to 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR with scleral lenses (P < 0.001). Best spectacle-corrected low-contrast VA improved from 0.68 ± 0.22 logMAR to 00.47 ± 0.10 logMAR with scleral lenses (P < 0.001). Along with the increase in overall median scores on the NEI VFQ-25 from 1735 to 2930 points (P < 0.001), the distance and near activities (P < 0.001), vision-specific mental health (P < 0.002), social functioning (P < 0.004), and driving (P < 0.005) improved after using scleral lenses for 3 months. CONCLUSION: Scleral lenses can be an effective and safe management option for patients with keratoconus leading to an improved vision and QOL.

Why are we not doing retinoscopy in the school eye screening? Is distant visual acuity a sensitive tool for making referrals?

PURPOSE: School eye screening program is an integrated part of SarvaShikshyaAbhiyan. Distance visual acuity was the only tool used in such school eye screening for making referrals. We aim to evaluate the referral rate when only distance visual acuity was used as the screening tool versus using retinoscopy. METHODS: School children were earlier screened using distant visual acuity as the sole criteria. They were again examined as per the guidelines recommended by State of Alaska and American Academy of Pediatrics, and the results of the two examinations were compared. Microsoft Excel 2007 was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Earlier 384 school children of class first to fourth (aged 6-10 years) had been screened using distant visual acuity. Of them, 87 (22.6%) were referred. The rest 297 (male 183 61.6%) students with a mean age of 7.8 years (standard deviation ± 1.23) were again examined and 42/384 (11%) were detected as having visual anomaly that were false negative/or missed during the initial screening. Refractive errors were detected in 33/42 (78.6%) students by retinoscopy. Retinoscopy showed the highest sensitivity (78.6%) and negative predictive value (96.6%) to detect all types of refractive error among all types of tests. Of 42 pair of eyes, 36 right eyes and 39 left eyes had refractive errors, mostly astigmatic, or hyperopic, which were missed earlier. CONCLUSION: Only distance visual acuity failed to detect hyperopia and astigmatism properly. Introduction of retinoscopy would increase the validity of school eye screening.

Making Blind Children See: Impact of Correcting Moderate and Severe Visual Impairment in Schools for the Blind.

PURPOSE: Childhood blindness and visual impairment accounts for enormous burden of blindness. This study aimed to analyze the causes of severe visual impairment and blindness in students attending schools for the blind and to identify those whose vision could be improved by optical aids. On dispensing such aids, the study also aimed to analyze the improvement in their vision function. METHODS: This was a prospective interventional study of 428 certified students from four special schools for blind. All the students underwent a comprehensive ophthalmic examination by a team of four ophthalmologists and four optometrists. The World Health Organization-Prevention of Blindness forms were used to record history and examination details. Spectacles and low-vision aids (LVAs) were dispensed to those whose vision could be improved. The main outcome measure was L V Prasad- Functional Vision Questionnaire (LVP-VFQ), which was used to compare the vision function before and 6 months after the intervention. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen (49.5%) students were girls. The causes of blindness in 370 children (<18 years) with vision <6/60 were whole globe involvement in 117 (31.6%) students (this included anophthalmos 47 [12.7%], microphthalmos 61 [16.4%], both 9 [2.4%]), nystagmus 29 (7.8%), optic atrophy 22 (5.9%), retinal causes 42 (11.3%), cataract 18 (4.9%), phthisis bulbi 24 (6.4%), corneal scarring in 40 (10.8%), and retinopathy of prematurity in 4 (1.1%). Fifty-four (12.6%) students were given spectacles and 41 (9.57%) LVA. There was a statistically significant difference in all questions (P < 0.01) of LVP-VFQ for the students dispensed with optical aids 6 months after the intervention. Twenty-four students had their vision improved to 6/60 or better, whereas 26 could now identify letters and print. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of students in schools for the blind can be helped to improving vision function using optical aids. Students in schools for the blind, nay all visually impaired individuals, need periodic ocular examination and ophthalmic care.