Effectiveness of visual and acoustic biofeedback eccentric viewing training in conjunction with home exercises on visual function: a retrospective observational review.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an eccentric viewing training program that combines biofeedback training using micro-perimetry with home exercises on multiple visual function parameters and to explore potential relationships between post-treatment visual function parameters. A retrospective observational review of 27 participants who underwent the training program was performed. Eligible participants were diagnosed with bilateral central scotomas secondary to age-related macular degeneration. All participants undertook up to 15 visual and acoustic biofeedback training sessions and were required to partake in traditional home exercises between sessions. The biofeedback training was conducted in the better eye using the Macular Integrity Assessment microperimeter (MAIA). Distance and near acuity, contrast sensitivity and fixation stability quantified by the P1 and P2 values and the 63% and 95% bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA) before and after the rehabilitation program were recorded. Significant improvement was noted post-training for distance visual acuity (t(26) = 4938 p = .000), near visual acuity (Z = -4.461 p = .000), contrast sensitivity (Z = -3.647 p = .000) and fixation stability for all measures, including P1 (t(26) = -9.490 p = .000), P2 (t(26) = -7.338 p = 0.000), 63% BCEA (Z = 3.569 p = .000) and 95% BCEA (t(26) = 4.687 p = .000). Significant medium-to-large correlations were also found between most visual function variables. Visual and acoustic biofeedback in conjunction with home exercises has the potential to improve visual function parameters in patients with age-related macular degeneration and irreversible central vision loss.

Accuracy and Efficiency of Orthoptists in Comprehensive Pediatric Eye Examinations.

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: To investigate the level of agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners in the comprehensive eye examination of children seen in an orthoptist-led triage clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient records over a 6-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Those with a presenting complaint related to vision or ocular motility were triaged into the orthoptist-led clinic and included in the study. Patients who did not meet the triage protocol and those who were not assessed by a medical practitioner at a subsequent appointment were excluded from analysis. The clinical findings from the orthoptist and medical practitioner were collected and compared. RESULTS: In total, sixty-three patients were reviewed during the 6-month period and met the inclusion criteria. After the initial comprehensive eye examination with an orthoptist, thirty-two were discharged from hospital and thirty-one were asked to return for a review appointment with a medical practitioner. Agreement between the orthoptists and medical practitioners for the diagnosis of strabismus and/or amblyopia was 84.6% (κ = 0.649, P < 0.001). There was strong agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners for refractive error of the right eye [τ (19) = 0.352, P = 0.729] and left eye [τ (19) = 1.785, P = 0.090]. Fundus examination comparisons between the orthoptists and medical practitioners showed very high agreement (95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Orthoptists have the skills necessary to provide comprehensive care of children referred for ocular motility and/or vision related disorders. There was close agreement between orthoptists and medical practitioners when performing comprehensive eye examinations.