Interventions for visual field defects in patients with stroke

Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Buchanan House, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, UK, G4 0BA.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 01/2011; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008388.pub2
Source: PubMed


Visual field defects are estimated to affect 20% to 57% of people who have had a stroke. Visual field defects can affect functional ability in activities of daily living (commonly affecting mobility, reading and driving), quality of life, ability to participate in rehabilitation, and depression, anxiety and social isolation following stroke. There are many interventions for visual field defects, which are proposed to work by restoring the visual field (restitution); compensating for the visual field defect by changing behaviour or activity (compensation); substituting for the visual field defect by using a device or extraneous modification (substitution); or ensuring appropriate diagnosis, referral and treatment prescription through standardised assessment or screening, or both.
To determine the effects of interventions for people with visual field defects after stroke.
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2011), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (December 2009) and nine electronic bibliographic databases including CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to December 2009), EMBASE (1980 to December 2009), CINAHL (1982 to December 2009), AMED (1985 to December 2009), and PsycINFO (1967 to December 2009). We also searched reference lists and trials registers, handsearched journals and conference proceedings and contacted experts.
Randomised trials in adults after stroke, where the intervention was specifically targeted at improving the visual field defect or improving the ability of the participant to cope with the visual field loss. The primary outcome was functional ability in activities of daily living and secondary outcomes included functional ability in extended activities of daily living, reading ability, visual field measures, balance, falls, depression and anxiety, discharge destination or residence after stroke, quality of life and social isolation, visual scanning, adverse events and death.
Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We undertook an assessment of methodological quality for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, method of dealing with missing data, and other potential sources of bias.
Thirteen studies (344 randomised participants, 285 of whom were participants with stroke) met the inclusion criteria for this review. However, only six of these studies compared the effect of an intervention with a placebo, control or no treatment group and were included in comparisons within this review. Four studies compared the effect of scanning (compensatory) training with a control or placebo intervention. Meta-analysis demonstrated that scanning training is more effective than control or placebo at improving reading ability (three studies, 129 participants; mean difference (MD) 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.59) and visual scanning (three studies, 129 participants; MD 18.84, 95% CI 12.01 to 25.66) but that scanning may not improve visual field outcomes (two studies, 110 participants; MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.28 to 0.88). There were insufficient data to enable generalised conclusions to be made about the effectiveness of scanning training relative to control or placebo for the primary outcome of activities of daily living (one study, 33 participants). Only one study (19 participants) compared the effect of a restitutive intervention with a control or placebo intervention and only one study (39 participants) compared the effect of a substitutive intervention with a control or placebo intervention.
There is limited evidence which supports the use of compensatory scanning training for patients with visual field defects (and possibly co-existing visual neglect) to improve scanning and reading outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion about the impact of compensatory scanning training on functional activities of daily living. There is insufficient evidence to reach generalised conclusions about the benefits of visual restitution training (VRT) (restitutive intervention) or prisms (substitutive intervention) for patients with visual field defects after stroke.

Download full-text


Available from: Fiona Rowe, Oct 23, 2014
46 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Compensatory and restorative treatments have been developed to improve visual field defects after stroke. However, no controlled trials have compared these interventions with standard occupational therapy (OT). A total of 45 stroke participants with visual field defect admitted for inpatient rehabilitation were randomized to restorative computerized training (RT) using computer-based stimulation of border areas of their visual field defects or to a computer-based compensatory therapy (CT) teaching a visual search strategy. OT, in which different compensation strategies were used to train for activities of daily living, served as standard treatment for the active control group. Each treatment group received 15 single sessions of 30 minutes distributed over 3 weeks. The primary outcome measures were visual field expansion for RT, visual search performance for CT, and reading performance for both treatments. Visual conjunction search, alertness, and the Barthel Index were secondary outcomes. Compared with OT, CT resulted in a better visual search performance, and RT did not result in a larger expansion of the visual field. Intragroup pre-post comparisons demonstrated that CT improved all defined outcome parameters and RT several, whereas OT only improved one. CT improved functional deficits after visual field loss compared with standard OT and may be the intervention of choice during inpatient rehabilitation. A larger trial that includes lesion location in the analysis is recommended.
    Neurorehabilitation and neural repair 12/2011; 26(5):463-9. DOI:10.1177/1545968311425927 · 3.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims. Homonymous hemianopia (HH), a severe visual consequence of stroke, causes difficulties in detecting obstacles on the nonseeing (blind) side. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the effects of oblique peripheral prisms, a novel development in optical treatments for HH, on detection of unexpected hazards when driving. Methods. Twelve people with complete HH (median 49 years, range 29–68) completed road tests with sham oblique prism glasses (SP) and real oblique prism glasses (RP). A masked evaluator rated driving performance along the 25 km routes on busy streets in Ghent, Belgium. Results. The proportion of satisfactory responses to unexpected hazards on the blind side was higher in the RP than the SP drive (80% versus 30%; P = 0.001), but similar for unexpected hazards on the seeing side. Conclusions. These pilot data suggest that oblique peripheral prisms may improve responses of people with HH to blindside hazards when driving and provide the basis for a future, larger-sample clinical trial. Testing responses to unexpected hazards in areas of heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic appears promising as a real-world outcome measure for future evaluations of HH rehabilitation interventions aimed at improving detection when driving.
    Stroke Research and Treatment 12/2012; 2012(3):176806. DOI:10.1155/2012/176806
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims: To profile site of stroke/cerebrovascular accident, type and extent of field loss, treatment options, and outcome. Methods: Prospective multicentre cohort trial. Standardised referral and investigation protocol of visual parameters. Results: 915 patients were recruited with a mean age of 69 years (SD 14). 479 patients (52%) had visual field loss. 51 patients (10%) had no visual symptoms. Almost half of symptomatic patients (n = 226) complained only of visual field loss: almost half (n = 226) also had reading difficulty, blurred vision, diplopia, and perceptual difficulties. 31% (n = 151) had visual field loss as their only visual impairment: 69% (n = 328) had low vision, eye movement deficits, or visual perceptual difficulties. Occipital and parietal lobe strokes most commonly caused visual field loss. Treatment options included visual search training, visual awareness, typoscopes, substitutive prisms, low vision aids, refraction, and occlusive patches. At followup 15 patients (7.5%) had full recovery, 78 (39%) had improvement, and 104 (52%) had no recovery. Two patients (1%) had further decline of visual field. Patients with visual field loss had lower quality of life scores than stroke patients without visual impairment. Conclusions: Stroke survivors with visual field loss require assessment to accurately define type and extent of loss, diagnose coexistent visual impairments, and offer targeted treatment.
    09/2013; 2013:719096. DOI:10.1155/2013/719096
Show more