Journal of the American Optometric Association · 1997
Visual-field measurements and driving eligibility.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Eldred K B, Steiner N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A 50-year-old black man with an ocular history of open-angle glaucoma was seen for a vision rehabilitation examination, with goals of improving his vision for work and determining his eligibility for driving. He was referred to the clinic through state services for the visually impaired.
METHODS: A low-vision evaluation was performed and baseline information was obtained, including distance- and near-visual acuities, visual fields, and subjective refraction. This information was used to determine if he was eligible for services and if any low-vision devices would benefit him.
RESULTS: The patient demonstrated moderately decreased visual acuity in the right eye (6/15) and very reduced visual acuity in the left eye (6/120). His visual fields varied depending on the test performed, ranging from 85 degrees to 140 degrees horizontal diameter. He was able to remove his spectacles and perform near tasks quite well.
CONCLUSIONS: The patient was counseled that if he used one of the field tests he could qualify for services, but if he chose the other test he would qualify for driving and not qualify for services. The ramifications of using different field tests and understanding their parameters when assessing eligibility for services and benefits can be significant.
METHODS: A low-vision evaluation was performed and baseline information was obtained, including distance- and near-visual acuities, visual fields, and subjective refraction. This information was used to determine if he was eligible for services and if any low-vision devices would benefit him.
RESULTS: The patient demonstrated moderately decreased visual acuity in the right eye (6/15) and very reduced visual acuity in the left eye (6/120). His visual fields varied depending on the test performed, ranging from 85 degrees to 140 degrees horizontal diameter. He was able to remove his spectacles and perform near tasks quite well.
CONCLUSIONS: The patient was counseled that if he used one of the field tests he could qualify for services, but if he chose the other test he would qualify for driving and not qualify for services. The ramifications of using different field tests and understanding their parameters when assessing eligibility for services and benefits can be significant.