Vittoria De Rosa

Low vision rehabilitation: current perspectives

Quality of life in low vision patients is deeply conditioned by their visual ability, and increased rates of depression, domestic injury, and need for caregiver assistance can be expected as a result of low performance. Much effort have been made recently in order to develop new tools and aids for rehabilitation of low vision, and this research has led to better knowledge of visual function and increased the likelihood of new therapies in the future. Modern low vision rehabilitation is the result of recent advances in science and technology, and will soon have an important role in people with vision impairment, numbers of whom are likely to increase, give the increasing age of the population. This review outlines scientific developments in low vision rehabilitation based on a search of the literature, covers the role of digital technology and advances in neurofunctional rehabilitation, and the possibility of restoring vision by use of retinal prostheses and cellular therapy.

Long term results of no-alcohol laser epithelial keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy for myopia

AIM To evaluate the long term clinical results of mechanical no-alcohol-assisted laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) versus standard photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for low-moderate myopia. METHODS Twenty-five eyes treated with LASEK and twenty-five eyes treated with PRK were evaluated with a mean follow-up duration of 60mo. Mechanical separation of the epithelium was performed with blunt spatula and without application of alcohol. Laser ablation was performed with the MEL-70 excimer laser. All patients were examined daily until epithelial closure; at 1, 3, 6, and 12mo, and every year subsequently. Main outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction, haze, efficacy and safety indexes. RESULTS Twenty-one eyes and 22 eyes completed follow-up of 60mo in LASEK and PRK group respectively. Manifest refraction at 60mo follow-up was -0.01 and 0.26 in LASEK and PRK group respectively. In the LASEK group mean UDVA and mean CDVA after 60mo were 20/22 and 20/20 respectively (P>0.01). In the PRK group mean UDVA and mean CDVA at 60mo follow-up were 20/20 and 20/20 after 60mo (P>0.01). The efficacy indexes were 0.87 and 0.95, and the safety indexes were 1.25 and 1.4 respectively for LASEK group and PRK group. CONCLUSION Both standard PRK and no-alcohol LASEK offer safe and effective correction of low-moderate myopia in the long term without any statistically significant difference between the two groups.