Table 4:
Functional Outcomes
| Author, Year | 1 Year | 3 Years | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orientation and Mobility (Find the Door)a | |||
| Ho et al, 201524 | 53% vs. 31% (P < .05) | 54% vs. 19% (P < .05) | — |
| da Cruz et al, 201619 | — | — | 52% vs. 23% (P < .05) |
| Orientation and Mobility (Follow the Line)b | |||
| Ho et al, 201524 | 73% vs. 17% (P < .05) | 68% vs. 14% (P < .05) | — |
| da Cruz et al, 201619 | — | — | 66% vs. 17% (P < .05) |
| Visual Orientationc | |||
| Geruschat et al, 20168 | — | −1.36 ± 0.19 (−38%; P < .001) | — |
| Visual Mobilityc | |||
| Geruschat et al, 20168 | — | −0.82 ± 0.20 (−22%; P = .003) | — |
| Daily Lifec | |||
| Geruschat et al, 20168 | — | −0.58 ± 0.12 (−19%; P = .001) | — |
| Interaction With Othersc | |||
| Geruschat et al, 20168 | — | −0.79 ± 0.15 (−20%; P < .001) | — |
| Sock Sortingd | |||
| Dagnelie et al, 201621 | — | Felt cover: 72% ± 19% vs. 33% ± 12% (P < .01) Bare table: 54% ± 23% vs. 35% ± 8% (P < .01) |
|
| Sidewalk Trackinge | |||
| Dagnelie et al, 201621 | — | 4.9 ± 2.6 vs. 6.9 ± 3.0 (P < .05) | — |
| Walking Direction Discriminationf | |||
| Dagnelie et al, 201621 | — | 67% vs. 7% | — |
Patients to walk across a room and find a simulated door. Success was defined as being able to touch the door.
Patients to follow a white line on the floor. Success was defined as being able to end on the line at its end point.
Patients to complete the Functional Low-Vision Observer Rated Assessment (FLORA) instrument22 with 35 tasks grouped into four domains: visual orientation (6 tasks), visual mobility (5 tasks), daily life (17 tasks), and interaction with others (7 tasks). An observer rated the performance of the task using a four-point scale, with scores ranging from 4 (impossible) to 1 (easy). Results expressed in score ± standard error of the mean with the Argus II system on minus off. The percentage of change is presented in parentheses. A negative value or percentage represents an improvement in function.
Patients to sort socks in colour with varying lighting and table surfaces, including felt cover and bare table. Results are the percentages (± standard deviation) of socks correctly identified by their colours comparing the Argus II system on versus off.
Patients to detect and track edges in an outdoor situation where lighting and contrast conditions are uncontrolled. Results are the number of out-of-bound counts in mean ± standard deviation with the Argus II system on versus off.
Patients to identify the walking direction of people passing in front of them while sitting in a stationary position. Results are the percentages of patients with the number of correct answers significantly above chance (P < .05) with the Argus II system on versus off.