PeerJ · 2024
Successful treatment of diplopia using prism correction combined with vision therapy/orthoptics improves health-related quality of life.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Navarini Luca, Currado Damiano, Caso Francesco, Costa Luisa, Chimenti Maria Sole, D'Antonio Arianna, Tasso Marco, Salvato Mariangela, Laudisio Alice, Di Donato Stefano, Biaggi Alice, Marino Annalisa, Picchianti Diamanti Andrea, Palmisano Elena, Ruscitti Piero, Berardicurti Onorina, Germinario Sabino, Cipriani Paola, Perricone Roberto, Laganà Bruno, Scarpa Raffaele, Afeltra Antonella, Giacomelli Roberto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To track improvement in diplopia symptoms with strabismus-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaire across a treatment consisting of prism correction followed by vision therapy/orthoptics when prism treatment alone has not succeeded.
METHODS: Forty-eight participants with diplopia and a mean age of 62.45 were asked to complete an Adult Strabismus-20 (AS-20) questionnaire and a Diplopia Questionnaire (DQ) before and after prism correction. Inclusion criteria were diplopia reported on the DQ as "sometimes", "often" or "always" at reading or straight-ahead distance. The prism correction was classified as successful if the participant reported "never" or "rarely" on the DQ for reading and straight-ahead distance; and unsuccessful if the perceived diplopia worsened or remained the same. For all participants, mean initial AS-20 scores were compared with mean post-prism correction scores, taking into account AS-20 subscales (reading and general functions, and self-perception and interaction). Participants in the failed prism treatment subgroup subsequently underwent a programme of vision therapy wearing their prism correction, the results of which were again determined by participants' responses on the AS-20 questionnaire, completed before and after the vision therapy.
RESULTS: Five of the 48 participants dropped out of the study. Prism correction was classified as successful in 22 of 43 participants (51%), and unsuccessful in 21 (49%). Those participants for whom the prism correction was classified as a success showed a statistically significant improvement (p = 0.01) in both reading and general functions. In the failed treatment subgroup, no significant change in AS-20 score was recorded for any of the domains (p = 0.1). After treatment with vision therapy/orthoptics, however, 13 of the 20 participants in the unsuccessful prism correction subgroup (one of them dropped out the study) achieved binocular vision and statistically significant improvement in reading and general functions (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although effective prism correction of diplopia is correlated with enhanced HRQOL, prism correction alone is frequently not sufficient to achieve this objective. In these cases, vision therapy/orthoptics treatment as a coadjutant to prism correction is shown to improve HRQOL.
METHODS: Forty-eight participants with diplopia and a mean age of 62.45 were asked to complete an Adult Strabismus-20 (AS-20) questionnaire and a Diplopia Questionnaire (DQ) before and after prism correction. Inclusion criteria were diplopia reported on the DQ as "sometimes", "often" or "always" at reading or straight-ahead distance. The prism correction was classified as successful if the participant reported "never" or "rarely" on the DQ for reading and straight-ahead distance; and unsuccessful if the perceived diplopia worsened or remained the same. For all participants, mean initial AS-20 scores were compared with mean post-prism correction scores, taking into account AS-20 subscales (reading and general functions, and self-perception and interaction). Participants in the failed prism treatment subgroup subsequently underwent a programme of vision therapy wearing their prism correction, the results of which were again determined by participants' responses on the AS-20 questionnaire, completed before and after the vision therapy.
RESULTS: Five of the 48 participants dropped out of the study. Prism correction was classified as successful in 22 of 43 participants (51%), and unsuccessful in 21 (49%). Those participants for whom the prism correction was classified as a success showed a statistically significant improvement (p = 0.01) in both reading and general functions. In the failed treatment subgroup, no significant change in AS-20 score was recorded for any of the domains (p = 0.1). After treatment with vision therapy/orthoptics, however, 13 of the 20 participants in the unsuccessful prism correction subgroup (one of them dropped out the study) achieved binocular vision and statistically significant improvement in reading and general functions (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although effective prism correction of diplopia is correlated with enhanced HRQOL, prism correction alone is frequently not sufficient to achieve this objective. In these cases, vision therapy/orthoptics treatment as a coadjutant to prism correction is shown to improve HRQOL.