Lovie-Kitchin Jan E, Soong Grace P, Hassan Shirin E, Woods Russell L
School of Optometry, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Optom Vis Sci. 2010 Dec;87(12):E948-57. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ff99be.
To investigate evidence-based visual field size criteria for referral of low-vision (LV) patients for mobility rehabilitation.
One hundred and nine participants with LV and 41 age-matched participants with normal sight (NS) were recruited. The LV group was heterogeneous with diverse causes of visual impairment. We measured binocular kinetic visual fields with the Humphrey Field Analyzer and mobility performance on an obstacle-rich, indoor course. Mobility was assessed as percent preferred walking speed (PPWS) and number of obstacle-contact errors. The weighted kappa coefficient of association (κr) was used to discriminate LV participants with both unsafe and inefficient mobility from those with adequate mobility on the basis of their visual field size for the full sample and for subgroups according to type of visual field loss and whether or not the participants had previously received orientation and mobility training.
LV participants with both PPWS <38% and errors >6 on our course were classified as having inadequate (inefficient and unsafe) mobility compared with NS participants. Mobility appeared to be first compromised when the visual field was less than about 1.2 steradians (sr; solid angle of a circular visual field of about 70° diameter). Visual fields <0.23 and 0.63 sr (31 to 52° diameter) discriminated patients with at-risk mobility for the full sample and across the two subgroups. A visual field of 0.05 sr (15° diameter) discriminated those with critical mobility.
Our study suggests that: practitioners should be alert to potential mobility difficulties when the visual field is less than about 1.2 sr (70° diameter); assessment for mobility rehabilitation may be warranted when the visual field is constricted to about 0.23 to 0.63 sr (31 to 52° diameter) depending on the nature of their visual field loss and previous history (at risk); and mobility rehabilitation should be conducted before the visual field is constricted to 0.05 sr (15° diameter; critical).
探讨基于证据的低视力(LV)患者转诊至移动康复的视野大小标准。
招募了109名低视力参与者和41名年龄匹配的视力正常(NS)参与者。低视力组病因多样,情况各异。我们使用汉弗莱视野分析仪测量双眼动态视野,并在布满障碍物的室内场地评估移动表现。移动能力通过首选步行速度百分比(PPWS)和障碍物接触错误数量来评估。关联加权kappa系数(κr)用于根据全样本以及根据视野缺损类型和参与者是否曾接受定向和移动训练的亚组,将移动不安全且低效的低视力参与者与移动能力足够的参与者区分开来。
与视力正常的参与者相比,在我们的场地中PPWS<38%且错误>6的低视力参与者被归类为移动能力不足(低效且不安全)。当视野小于约1.2球面度(sr;直径约70°的圆形视野的立体角)时,移动能力似乎首先受到损害。视野<0.23和0.63 sr(直径31至52°)可区分全样本和两个亚组中有移动风险的患者。视野为0.05 sr(直径15°)可区分出移动能力危急的患者。
我们的研究表明:当视野小于约1.2 sr(直径70°)时,从业者应警惕潜在的移动困难;根据视野缺损的性质和既往史(有风险),当视野缩小至约0.23至0.63 sr(直径31至52°)时,可能有必要进行移动康复评估;并且应在视野缩小至0.05 sr(直径15°;危急)之前进行移动康复。