Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jan-Feb;29(1):51-6.
doi: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e318275b754.

Health-related quality of life after surgical removal of an eye

Affiliations

Health-related quality of life after surgical removal of an eye

Takaaki Kondo et al. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the general health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and the vision-specific HRQOL in patients following the surgical removal of 1 eye who had good vision in the remaining eye to a group of binocular patients with good vision in OU.

Methods: The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12 and the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire HRQOL surveys were administered to 29 patients who had surgical removal of an eye who attended an ocular prosthetics clinic and to 25 binocular persons who accompanied a patient. All subjects in each group had best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Overall statistical significance was tested using Cramer's V followed by individual t tests for independent groups for each of the scales on the 2 questionnaires to determine whether the means between the 2 groups differed statistically.

Results: The patient group had a mean age of 50.98 years (range, 19-76 years). The control group had a mean age of 49.46 years (range, 18-76 years). The mean time after loss of vision was 28.03 years (range, 1-71 years), and the mean time from surgical removal of the eye was 23.6 years (range, 0.5-59.5 years). There was an overall significant difference between the 2 groups on the 15 derived subscales of the 2 forms (Cramer's V, p = 0.0025). Three general HRQOL subscales (Short Form 12-mental component summary, Short Form 12 physical component summary, and National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-General Health) showed no differences between the 2 groups (p = 0.48, p = 0.81, and p = 0.78, respectively). Three of the 12 vision-specific National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire subscales demonstrated statistically significant differences between the patient and control groups: peripheral vision (p = 0.0006), role difficulties (p = 0.015), and the composite score (p = 0.014). In addition, 2 monocular patients had given up driving compared with no binocular subjects (p = 0.056).

Conclusions: This population of monocular patients had general physical and mental HRQOL equivalent to the normal binocular group despite the surgical removal of 1 eye. However, the reduced vision-specific HRQOL of monocular patients on the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire indicates that there are substantial residual visual deficits even after prolonged monocular status.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of SF-12 and NEI VFQ subscores for Monocular Patients and the Binocular Control Group. The means of the monocular and normal binocular control groups are presented for each subscale. The error bars represent the standard errors of the means. An asterisk marks a scale which showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Measures of general physical and mental health indicate that the monocular patients have a quality of life at least as good as the normal binocular subjects. However, their visual specific quality of life is reduced on every scale of the NEI VFQ, although not always at a statistically significant level. This universal reduction in vision specific quality of life is reflected in a statistically significantly reduced composite score.

References

    1. Jones RK, Lee DN. Why two eyes are better than one: the two views of binocular vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981;7:30–40. - PubMed
    1. Steeves JK, González EG, Steinbach MJ. Vision with one eye: a review of visual function following unilateral enucleation. Spat Vis. 2008;21:509–29. - PubMed
    1. Schein Jerome D. Acquired monocular disability. J Vis Impair Blind. 1988;82:279–81.
    1. Buys N, Lopez J. Experience of Monocular Vision in Australia. J Vis Impair Blind. 2004;98:519–33.
    1. Knoth S. Monocular blindness: Is it a handicap? Re:View. 1995;26:177–80.

Publication types