Epidemiological Analysis and Low Vision Rehabilitation of the Visually Impaired Registered in Seoul

Jong Hwa Park; Jin Yong Lee; Yoon Kim; Nam Ju Moon

doi:10.3341/jkos.2009.50.4.572

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(4) > 1008526

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Lee, Kim, and Moon: Epidemiological Analysis and Low Vision Rehabilitation of the Visually Impaired Registered in Seoul

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(4):572-579.

Published online: 7 September 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.4.572

Epidemiological Analysis and Low Vision Rehabilitation of the Visually Impaired Registered in Seoul

Jong Hwa Park, MD¹, Jin Yong Lee, MD², Yoon Kim, MD, PhD², Nam Ju Moon, MD, PhD¹

¹Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Health Policy and Management, College of medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Nam Ju Moon, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Chung-Ang University Hospital #224-1 Heukseok-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 156-755, Korea Tel: 82-2-6299-1687, Fax: 82-2-825-1666, E-mail: njmoon@chol.com

Received 22 November 2007 Accepted 25 November 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the clinical manifestations, epidemiology and low vision rehabilitation results of the visually impaired registered in Seoul, Korea.

Methods

Using a randomized, stratified systematic sampling method, we selected 60 participants registered as visually impaired who lived in Seoul. Ophthalmologic examinations of these participants were performed by one ophthalmologist.

Results

The mean age of participants was 55.0±11.6 years. The rank 6 was the most common visual disability degree (40.0%). Ocular trauma (21.3%), optic neuropathy (20.2%) and glaucoma (11.2%) were the most common causes for visual disability. The distribution ratios of low vision and blindness were 34.4±11.9% and 19.7±10.0%, respectively. Low vision rehabilitation was performed (low vision patients, n=17), and both near and distance visual acuities improved (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Low vision rehabilitation would be a great help to the visually impaired.

Keywords: Low vision, Rehabilitation, Visually impaired registered

References

1. World Health Organization. Developing an Action Plan to prevent blindness at national, provincial and district levels. 2nd ed.Geneva: World Health Organization and International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness;2004. p. 43–4.

2. Kim KH, Moon NJ. Clinical analysis of 100 low vision patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1997; 38:141–8.

3. Lee HI, Song KS, Moon NJ. Clinical analysis of 350 low vision patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000; 41:2391–400.

4. Park JH, Moon NJ. Clinical Analysis of 500 Low Vision Patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:345–52.

5. Hwang JM. Clinical analysis of 150 patients with visual disability. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1997; 38:135–40.

6. Kim KH, Oh TS, Jang SD. Clinical aspects of 273 patients with visual disability. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:136–42.

7. Lee SJ, Choi MY. Clinical analysis of monocular blindness. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:733–8.

8. Dejong G, Palsbo SE, Beatty PW, et al. The Organization and financing of health services for persons with disabilities. Milbank Q. 2002; 80:261–301.

9. Reidy A, Minassian DC, Vafidis G, et al. Prevalence of serious eye disease and visual impairment in a north London population: population based, cross sectional study. BMJ. 1998; 316:1643–6.

10. Wormald RP, Wright LA, Courtney P, et al. Visual problems in the elderly population and implications for services. BMJ. 1992; 304:1226–9.

11. Wormald R, Evans J. Registration of blind and partially sighted people. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994; 78:733–4.

12. Kirchner C. Data on blindness and visual impairment in the U.S. New York: Foundation for the Blind;1988. p. 101.

13. Robbins HG. The low vision patient of tomorrow becomes the low vision patient of today. Clin Exp Optom. 2001; 84:101–3.

14. Dandona R, Dandona L, Srinivas M, et al. Planning low vision services in India. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:1871–8.

15. Buch H, Vinding T, la Cour M, et al. Prevalence and Causes of Visual Impairment and Blindness among 9980 Scandinavian Adults. The Copenhagen City Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:53–61.

16. He M, Xu J, Li S, et al. A survey of blindness and cataract surgery in Doumen County, China. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:1602–8.

17. Nirmalan PK, Thulasiraj RD, Maneksha V, et al. A population based eye survey of older adults in Tirunelveli district of south India: blindness, cataract surgery, and visual outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86:505–12.

18. Zainal M, Ismail SM, Ropilah AR, et al. Prevalence of blindness and low vision in Malaysian population: results from the National Eye Survey 1996. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86:951–6.

19. Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klarer CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004; 122:477–85.

20. Maberley DA, Hollands H, Chuo J, et al. The prevalence of low vision and blindness in Canada. Eye. 2006; 20:341–6.

21. Newland HS, Woodward AJ, Taumoepeau LA, et al. Epidemiology of blindness and visual impairment in the kingdom of Tonga. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994; 78:344–8.

22. Watson GR, De l'Aune W, Stelmack J, et al. National survey of the impact of low vision device use among veterans. Optom Vis Sci. 1997; 74:249–59.

23. Humphry RC, Thompson GM. Low vision aids-evaluation in a general eye department. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1986; 105:296–303.

24. Cole RG. Considerations in low vision prescribing. Problems in Optometry: A structured approach to low vision care. 3. Philadelphia: Lippincott;1991. p. 416–32.

25. Krefman RA. Working distance comparision of plus lens and reading telescopes. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1980; 57:835–8.

Table 1.

Definition of visual disability (Korean Standard)

Rank	Condition
1	Individuals who in the better eye have a best corrected visual acuity of 0.02 or less
2	Individuals who in the better eye have a best corrected visual acuity of 0.04 or less
3–1	Individuals who in the better eye have a best corrected visual acuity of 0.06 or less
3–2	Individuals who in each eyes have a visual field of 5 degrees or less
4–1	Individuals who in the better eye have a best corrected visual acuity of 0.1 or less
4–2	Individuals who in each eyes have a visual field of 10 degrees or less
5–1	Individuals who in the better eye have a best corrected visual acuity of 0.2 or less
5–2	Individuals who in both eyes have a visual field of hemianopsia or less
6	Individuals who in the worse eye have a best corrected visual acuity of 0.02 or less

Table 2.

Age and sex distribution of the subjects

Age (Years)	Number of subjects (%)
Age (Years)	Male	Female	Total
31 ∼ 40	7 (11.7)	3 (5.0)	10 (16.7)
41 ∼ 50	7 (11.7)	2 (3.3)	9 (15.0)
51 ∼ 60	12 (20.0)	4 (6.7)	16 (26.7)
61 ∼ 70	17 (28.3)	5 (8.3)	22 (36.6)
71 ∼ 80	2 (3.3)	1 (1.7)	3 (5.0)
Total	45 (75.0)	15 (25.0)	60 (100.0)

Table 3.

Rank of visual disabilities of the subjects

Rank	Number of subjects (%)
Rank	Male	Female	Total
1	15 (25.0)	2 (3.3)	17 (28.3)
2	4 (6.7)	3 (5.0)	7 (11.7)
3	5 (8.3)	1 (1.7)	6 (10.0)
4	1 (1.7)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)
5	4 (6.7)	1 (1.7)	5 (8.3)
6	16 (26.7)	8 (13.3)	24 (40.0)
Total	45 (75.0)	15 (25.0)	60 (100.0)

Table 4.

The comparison of current and revaluation rank of visual disabilities

		Current rank of visual disabilities						Total
		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total
Revaluation rank of visual disabilities	1	14	3	2	0	1	0	20
	2	2	3	0	0	0	0	5
	3	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
	4	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
	5	0	1	1	1	1	2	6
	6	0	0	2	0	2	22	26
Total		16	7	6	1	5	24	59

Kappa index: 0.569 (p<0.05).

Table 5.

Distance visual acuities of the subjects

Distance visual acuity	Number of subjects (%)
Distance visual acuity	Right eye	Left eye	Total
Light perception (−)^*	12 (10.0)	21 (17.5)	33 (27.6)
Light Perception (+)	6 (5.0)	5 (4.2)	11 (9.2)
Hand Motion	2 (1.7)	6 (5.0)	8 (6.7)
Finger Count	6 (5.0)	11 (9.2)	17 (14.2)
0.01∼0.04	5 (4.2)	6 (5.0)	11 (9.2)
0.05∼0.1	1 (0.8)	1 (0.8)	2 (1.6)
0.125∼0.25	4 (3.3)	0 (0.0)	4 (3.3)
0.32∼0.5	1 (0.8)	3 (2.5)	4 (3.3)
0.63∼1.0	23 (19.2)	7 (5.8)	30 (25.0)
Total	60 (50.0)	60 (50.0)	120 (100.0)

^* Light perception(−) includes anophthalmos.

Table 6.

Causes of visual disabilities

Cause	Number of subjects (%)
Cause	Right eye	Left eye	Total
Trauma	7 (7.9)	12 (13.5)	19 (21.3)
Optic atrophy	8 (9.0)	10 (11.2)	18 (20.2)
Glaucoma	5 (5.6)	5 (5.6)	10 (11.2)
Retinal detachment	3 (3.4)	6 (6.7)	9 (10.1)
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy	4 (4.5)	4 (4.5)	8 (9.0)
Retinitis pigmetosa	3 (3.4)	3 (3.4)	6 (6.7)
Corneal opacity	3 (3.4)	3 (3.4)	6 (6.7)
Macular degeneration	0 (0.0)	1 (1.1)	1 (1.1)
High myopia	0 (0.0)	1 (1.1)	1 (1.1)
Others	5 (5.6)	6 (6.7)	11 (12.4)
Total	38(42.7)	51(57.3)	89 (100.0)

Table 7.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of low vision rehabilitations

Case	Age(Y)/Sex	Diagnosis	LVA^* for distance (magnification or prism)	Distance BCVA^†		LVA^* for near (magnification or prism)	Near BCVA^†		Comments
Case	Age(Y)/Sex	Diagnosis	LVA^* for distance (magnification or prism)	Pre^§	Post^∏	LVA^* for near (magnification or prism)	Pre^§	Post^∏	Comments
1	57/F	Retinitis pigmentosa	No effects	20/160	−	Clip-on magnifier (×4)	20/63	20/20
2	67/M	Glaucoma	Keplerian telescope (×4)	20/80	20/30	Illuminated pocket magnifier (×5)	20/100	20/25
3	44/M	Glaucoma	Keplerian telescope (×4)	20/100	20/30	Illuminated pocket magnifier (×4)	20/63	20/50
4	55/M	Corneal opacity	Galilean telescope (×2.2)	20/100	20/50	Magnifying ruler	20/63	20/50
5	34/M	Glaucoma	No effects	20/25	−	No effects	20/25	−	VF^＃<10°
6	65/M	Glaucoma	No effects	20/50	20/50	Modular-prismatic glass (6∆)	20/40	20/40	VF^＃<10°
7	64/F	Diabetic retinopathy	Keplerian telescope (8×20)	20/400	20/30	Illuminated stand magnifier (×9)	20/100	20/25
8	66/M	Retinal detachment	No effects	20/700	−	Stand magnifier (×15)	20/250	20/100
9	69/M	Glaucoma	No effects	20/50	−	No effects	20/50	−	VF^＃<10°
10	35/M	Retinitis pigmentosa	Keplerian telescope (6×16)	CF^‡	20/80	Illuminated pocket magnifier (×9)	CF^‡	20/40
11	56/M	Macular degeneration	No effects	20/400	−	Illuminated pocket magnifier (×7)	20/160	20/32
12	38/F	Retinitis pigmentosa	Keplerian telescope (6×16)	20/700	20/30	Illuminated pocket magnifier (×9)	CF^‡	20/25
13	41/F	Optic atrophy	Keplerian telescope (6×16)	20/350	20/50	Clip-on magnifier (×7)	20/160	20/32
14	61/F	Macular degeneration	No effects	20/400	−	Modular-prismatic glass (14∆)	20/400	20/125
15	54/F	High myopia	Keplerian telescope (8×20)	20/700	20/125	Stand magnifier (×15)	20/100	20/32
16	32/M	Optic atrophy	No effects	CF^‡	−	Illuminated pocket magnifier (×11)	20/200	20/100
17	63/F	Corneal opacity	Keplerian telescope (6×16)	20/225	20/40	Illuminated pocket magnifier (×9)	20/100	20/25

^* LVA=low vision aid

^† BCVA=best corrected visual acuity

^‡ CF=counting fingers

^§ Pre=prerehabilitation

^∏ Post=postrehabilitation

^＃ VF=visual field.

TOOLS

Similar articles