British and Irish Orthoptic Journal最新文献

Purpose: A narrative review of the literature reporting ocular abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia was undertaken to determine the types and prevalence of orthoptic conditions in this patient cohort.

Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases yielded 1,974 studies published between January 1992 and January 2022. All were screened for relevance based on their title and abstract.

Results: Seventeen studies were included in the final review. Ocular abnormalities reported in schizophrenia included a high incidence of strabismus, reduced visual acuity and reduced stereopsis compared to controls. Additionally, eye movement abnormalities (including reduced smooth pursuit gain and increased prosaccade latency) were frequently reported. Reduced visual acuity was associated with negative symptoms and reduced quality of life in schizophrenia.

Conclusions: Orthoptists and eye care professionals should be aware that a higher incidence of strabismus, reduced visual acuity, reduced stereoacuity, and eye movement abnormalities are reported in patients with schizophrenia. Further research is required to determine whether, or to what extent, ocular abnormalities and visual disturbances influence or exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia, and whether there is an effect of schizophrenia medication on these orthoptic conditions.

Introduction: Strabismus surgery may be undertaken for visual benefit, to improve or eliminate diplopia symptoms, or to restore or improve binocular single vision (BSV). In patients without visual symptoms or expected visual benefit, strabismus surgery may still be undertaken if the presence of strabismus causes the patient psychosocial symptoms. To evaluate strabismus surgery undertaken for psychosocial reasons, evidence of postoperative outcomes in this specific cohort is needed.

Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted (1946-2023) to identify evidence where postoperative outcomes were reported for adult patients (age 18 years and above) who had undergone strabismus surgery for psychosocial reasons.

Results: Sixty-nine papers were included in the literature review. Most sources of evidence included patients within heterogeneous cohorts of strabismus surgery outcomes, with a range of symptoms and differing surgical aims.

Discussion: In adults who underwent strabismus surgery for psychosocial reasons, improved postoperative ocular alignment and/or improved health related quality of life (HRQoL) were common. Strabismus surgery outcomes appeared to be measured satisfactorily at three months postoperatively. Additional surgical outcomes, including an expanded field of vision, unexpected BSV, improved binocular summation, improved task performance and improved eye movements have been reported, but not fully investigated. There was a lack of consensus on how postoperative success should be defined and measured. A core outcome set for strabismus has been suggested and there is potential to add to the available evidence by investigating which outcome measures are most relevant to those with strabismus and psychosocial symptoms. There is a growing need for robust evidence in this specific subgroup of patients due to a lack of evidence specifically reporting postoperative outcomes in adults with strabismus and psychosocial symptoms.

Background: Children with learning difficulties that require a vision assessment may not be able to perform standard clinical vision tests, for example, Forced Choice Preferential Looking (FCPL). There is a lack of standardisation on the procedure of vision assessment in this group of children. The aim of this literature review was to identify and evaluate methods of vision assessment when standard clinical vision tests are not possible in children with severe learning difficulties.

Method: Three databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched from inception to Nov 2022 for methods of vision assessment in children with learning difficulties. Reference lists and grey literature were also searched. The McMaster University Critical review form for quantitative studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the primary studies identified.

Results: Five-hundred and seventy one papers were identified from databases and 16 were identified from searching reference lists and grey literature. Of the 587, five studies were relevant and fulfilled all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three methods of vision assessment were identified: Visually Evoked Potentials (VEP), questionnaires, and the Bradford visual function box (BVFB).

Discussion: The VEP method was validated and reliable, although it had a similar success rate to the standardised FCPL tests in children with learning difficulties. The BVFB was a standardised method for measurement of vision threshold in children that cannot successfully complete FCPL tests, however it has not been validated. Questionnaires are an efficient way to gather descriptive information on the child's functional vision, however no guidance on the interpretation of the information is available. The BVFB and questionnaires require further development and validation. All three methods (VEP, questionnaires, and BVFB) can be useful as part of the assessment of vision in a child with severe learning difficulties where standard clinical tests are not possible, when used in a standardised manner.

Aim: To determine whether horizontal fusional vergences are comparable when measured using a prism bar and synoptophore.

Methods: Thirty two participants (18-23 years) had their blur, break, and recovery points measured for convergence and divergence amplitudes using a prism bar (6 m) and synoptophore. All participants had VA of 0.1 LogMAR or better in either eye, were heterophoric or orthophoric and had binocular single vision. The prism bar target was a 0.2 LogMAR letter. The synoptophore target was the foveal 'rabbit' fusion slides. The prism bar was placed over the dominant eye and the testing speed was two seconds per two prism dioptres (Δ), increasing to five seconds per 5Δ when the increments began to increase in 5Δ. Synoptophore testing speed was two seconds per degree.

Results: The synoptophore measured significantly higher convergence break points than the prism bar (Z = 3.37, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found between both tests for divergence break points (Z = 0.99, p = 0.32). However, both tests displayed wide limits of agreement (LoA) when measuring convergence (-24Δ to + 49.59Δ) and divergence break points (-7.70Δ to + 10.19Δ). Differences when measuring convergence and divergence blur and recovery points were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: There was a statistically and clinically significant difference when measuring convergence break points using the prism bar and synoptophore but no significant difference when measuring divergence break points. However, both tests displayed wide LoA when measuring convergence and divergence break points, indicating they should not be used interchangeably in clinic to measure horizontal fusional vergences.

Purpose: This study aimed to explore the support that UK optometrists feel they require to facilitate their engagement with myopia control intervention.

Methods: A self-administered online survey was distributed via QualtricsXM to practising optometrists in the UK via email lists and newsletters of local optical committees, social media, and optometric networks. Questions focussed on learning styles, training needs and barriers to learning.

Results: Fifty-five respondents completed the survey. Forty-eight respondents answered the question on where they get information about myopia control and learning style, 79.2% indicated that conferences offering Continuing Professional Development (CPD) material were their main source, and 20.8% preferred online learning as the preferred format of delivery. Optometrists would like to receive training in clinical assessments (78.9%), evaluating suitable interventions (76.3%), developing and implementing specific patient intervention plans (76.3%), carrying out chosen myopia control interventions (fitting/prescribing) (73.7%), and the use of pharmacological interventions (94.4%). Of the 40 respondents who answered professional development questions, 97 5% were most interested in finding, identifying and applying evidencebased practice (EBP), followed by clinical decision-making in myopia control (95.0%). When asked about barriers to learning in this field, 29.7% reported limited time to attend training as the greatest barrier.

Conclusion: Optometrists felt they need training in various aspects of myopia management, from practical skills to assessing and fitting/prescribing appropriate myopia control interventions. They were also interested in learning more on EBP and clinical decision-making related to myopia control. To improve the uptake of myopia control among optometrists, various learning methods, especially online learning, and providing sufficient time for training are crucial.

Introduction: Electronic head-mounted low vision aids (LVAs) can help children and young people (CYP) to access schoolwork and leisure activities which they would otherwise struggle to be able to do with traditional optical or hand held LVAs. SightPlus uses a smartphone mounted in a virtual reality headset controlled using a Bluetooth joystick. It offers users 0.7-24.3× magnification alongside enhanced modes to maximise vision.

Methods: Eighteen participants aged 8-16 years with reduced vision were given SightPlus to use at home for four weeks. Visual acuity was assessed with and without SightPlus along with reading performance, contrast sensitivity, functional vision and quality of life questionnaires.

Results: Clinically significant improvements in distance vision (0.633logMAR SD ± 0.359), near vision (0.411logMAR SD ± 0.368), reading acuity (0.454LlogMAR SD ± 0.406) and critical print size (0.285logMAR ± 0.360) were seen when testing with SightPlus.However, there was a mean decrease in contrast sensitivity and reading speed when using SightPlus. Despite this, nine out of the 14 patients included for analysis indicated a preference to continue to use SightPlus. Of note, younger participants were more likely to show a preference for using SightPlus. All seven CYP aged 10 or under wanted to continue to use SightPlus; in contrast, only two of the seven participants aged 11 or over wanted to continue.

Conclusions: Like the results in adult populations, SightPlus has been found to improve CYP visual functions. Older participants were less likely to want to continue to use SightPlus, potentially suggesting they have found other methods for managing sight loss.

Introduction: The importance of the use of contrast sensitivity (CS) tests in orthoptic practice is well established. However, despite the clinical relevance the implementation within clinical care is known to be variable. There are no known studies that investigate the use of CS tests in Orthoptic clinics in the UK, therefore the aim of this study is to gather information from Orthoptists in the UK on their opinion of CS and use of CS testing in clinical practice, now and in the future.

Methods: An online survey was distributed via JISC to the British and Irish Orthoptic Journal newsletter three times over a period of four weeks in June 2021 inviting practising orthoptists in the United Kingdom to complete. The questionnaire comprised of a series of questions regarding current use with free text responses for additional information.

Results: There were 84 responses to the survey. The preferred test for adult and children testing is Pelli Robson with 50% reporting use of this test. 56% felt there is a need for a new CS test for young children, 12% said no and 32% were unsure. The highest percentage (57.1%) of participants were confident to some degree that their preferred test gave them useful clinical information.

Conclusion: The result of the survey demonstrates the variability of CS testing currently in orthoptic practice in the UK. It also highlights the lack of currently available tests for children for CS testing, which may be addressed by the addition of the new Double Happy CS test.

Introduction: It is well documented that socioeconomic disadvantage adversely affects general health and ocular health worldwide. Within orthoptics, while clinicians recognise a relationship between socioeconomic situation and treatment outcome, no previous literature review was found to address this issue. Neither was a UK-specific literature review found to address the same issue for ophthalmology as a whole.

Aim: This literature review evaluates evidence for an association between socioeconomic situation and ophthalmic/orthoptic conditions and their treatment outcomes, specifically within the UK.

Methods: Keyword searches were conducted on Google Scholar and the University of Liverpool library catalogue. Results for the main analyses were limited to full papers, specific to the UK, written in English. Literature was only included from pre-2000 if more recent evidence was insufficient.

Results: There is evidence of socioeconomic disadvantage being associated with the following: reduced visual acuity; reduced attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening appointments; and delayed presentation of glaucoma, cataracts, and diabetic retinopathy. However, evidence linking socioeconomic disadvantage to AMD is mixed. There is limited evidence of the increased prevalence of amblyopia and subsequent barriers to its treatment for socioeconomically underserved children. There is also evidence of a reduction in quality of life for socioeconomically underserved adults with strabismus.

Conclusions: Health inequalities within ophthalmology and orthoptics are reported, but with confounding results for some conditions. Further research should explore the reasons behind the inequalities that are found and identify methods of reducing them.

Background & aim: The optometrist is often one of the professionals patients consult when they have headaches. The limitations inherent in previous studies on the topic limit the utilization of their findings. Therefore, the aim of conducting the present study was to explore correlations between headache and refractive errors in a clinical setting using extended classification criteria.

Methods: The study design was cross-sectional, and sample comprised (headache group = 1062; non-headache group = 1095) participants aged 10-40 years who attended an optometry practice. During case-history taking, participants were classified as headache and non-headache group. Refraction, ocular health examinations, accommodative and vergence tests were performed. Headaches were sub-classified according to the anatomic location such as temporal, frontal, occipital, or diffuse, based on where pain was felt.

Results: Temporal and temporo-frontal headaches were most frequent. Participants in the headache group numbered 1062 with mean age 25.1 ± 8.6; females 841 (79.1%) and males 221 (20.8%) while those in the no headache group numbered 1095 with mean age 25.3 ± 8.7; females 648 (59.1%). Low amount spheres and cylinders (p = 0.003) as well as hyperopic, and against-the-rule astigmatism (p = 0.012) and (p = 0.03) respectively were significantly more frequent in the headache group.

Conclusion: Temporal headaches were most frequent. Patients with low spheres and cylindrical errors as well as hyperopic and against-the-rule astigmatism were significantly more prone to headaches. This study provides findings, which have not been reported. Findings have implications for clinical practice and highlights the need to compensate for low ametropia. A standard study protocol is recommended.