4.6 Article

Evaluation of the impact of intracorneal ring segments implantation on the quality of life of patients with keratoconus using the NEI-RQL (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of life) instrument

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 94, Issue 1, Pages 101-105

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.161562

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/ aims: A prospective study evaluating the impact of intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation on the quality of life of patients with keratoconus using the NEI-RQL (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life) instrument. Methods: Sixty-nine eyes of 42 keratoconus patients were implanted with the Keraring. All patients self-administered the NEI-RQL before and 4 1/2 to 8 months after surgery. The results were evaluated and analysed, along with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refraction, contrast sensitivity, corneal topography and aberrometry preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Results: There was a significant improvement in all NEI-RQL scales and the overall scale. Clarity of vision,'' far vision,'' near vision,'' activity limitations,'' appearance'' and satisfaction with correction'' had the greatest improvement, ranging from 25 to 50 preoperatively to 80 to 90 after surgery. Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity and binocular BCVA improved significantly, and there was a significant decrease in keratometric values, from 50.22 dioptres preoperatively to 46.27 dioptres postoperatively. Contrast sensitivity function improved postoperatively, especially at the frequency of 6 cpd. Low-order root mean square (RMS) improved after surgery, but high-order RMS did not. Conclusion: ICRS implantation not only improves the quantitative metrics such as visual acuity and refraction, but also has a positive impact on patients' quality of life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available