Improvements in vision‐related quality of life in blind patients implanted with the Argus II Epiretinal Prosthesis

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic data from the Argus II clinical trial

Age at time of implant
Mean	58.3
Median	57.9
Range	27.8–77.4
Female : male ratio	9:21
Race
White	n = 27 (90%)
Other	n = 3 (10%)
Years since first diagnosis of RP
Mean	15.9
Median	17.5
Range	1.5–26.9

RP: retinitis pigmentosa

Table 2. Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) dimensions with scoring scale. Within each dimension, lower scores reflect little to no effect on quality of life caused by loss of vision. Scores shown in bold represent worse outcomes associated with the visual loss. All six dimensions are combined to form a single utility score ranging 0‐1. Each dimension is identified by the term underlined (for example, dimension 1 is referred to as ‘injury’ dimension).

Dimension	Survey scale
1. Does my vision make it likely I will injure myself (that is, when moving around the house, yard, neighbourhood or workplace)?	1 = Unlikely
	2 = Small chance
	3 = Good chance
	4 = Very likely
	5 = Almost certainly
2. Does my vision make it difficult to cope with the demands in my life?	1 = No effect
	2 = Not difficult
	3 = Little difficulty
	4 = Moderately difficult
	5 = Very difficult
	6 = Unable
3. Does my vision affect my ability to have friendships?	1 = Easy
	2 = No effect
	3 = More difficult
	4 = Lot more difficult
	5 = Extremely difficult
	6 = Unable
4. Do I have difficulty organising any assistance I may need?	1 = Not difficult
	2 = Little difficulty
	3 = Moderately difficulty
	4 = Lot of difficulty
	5 = Unable
5. Does my vision make it difficult to fulfil the roles I would like to fulfil in my life (for example, family roles, work roles, community roles)?	1 = No effect
	2 = Not difficult
	3 = Little difficulty
	4 = Moderately difficulty
	5 = Very difficult
	6 = Unable
6. Does my vision affect my confidence to join in everyday activities?	1 = More confident
	2 = No effect
	3 = Little less confident
	4 = Moderately less confident
	5 = Lot less confident
	6 = Not confident

short-legendFigure 1.

Table 3. Survey scores for patients whose blindness was affecting their quality of life at baseline for relevant dimensions. Scores reflect the average survey score at baseline and the combined average score from 12 to 36-months follow‐up visits. Therefore, a decrease in survey score reflects an increase in quality of life. Statistical significance is defined as p < 0.05 and is designated with an asterisk.

VisQoL dimension	Number	% of overall cohort	Baseline mean survey score	Follow‐up mean survey score	p‐value
Injury (item 1)	15	50	3.8	2.8	0.0362*
Life (item 2)	20	67	4.4	3.7	0.0069*
Assistance (item 4)	9	30	3.1	2.4	0.1745
Roles (item 5)	16	53	4.6	3.8	0.0012*
Activity (item 6)	10	33	4.1	3.8	0.1026

Table 4. Univariate associations with baseline utility scores

Variable	p‐value
Age	0.7962
Years with RP	0.6578
Gender	0.4375

RP: retinitis pigmentosa

Table 5. Four groups formed from regression tree analysis using gender, age and years with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Males under age 66 with less than 40-years with RP (Group 1) have lower average utility scores than all other groups. Overall R² = 0.167.

Group	Gender	Age	Years with RP	Number	Mean and SD utility score
1	Male	<65.9	<39.6	9	0.4873 ± 0.1086
2	Male	<65.9	≥39.6	6	0.6823 ± 0.2063
3	Male	≥65.9	–	6	0.6732 ± 0.2380
4	Female	–	–	9	0.6727 ± 0.2553
Total	–	–	–	30	0.6191 ± 0.2146

SD: standard deviation