Effectiveness of Mp-3 Microperimetric Biofeedback Fixation Training For Low Vision Rehabilitation in Patients Treated With Corticosteroid Ivt in Retinal Vein Occlusions

Figures & data

Table 1 Sampling of Patients in the Biofeedback Group and in the Control Group

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE
	Biofeedback Group	Control group
Number of eyes	24	24
Average age and DS	66,83±15,31,	69,83 ±12,41
Sex	M=10; F=14	M=16; F=8
Number of eyes with CRVO	8	8
Number of eyes with BRVO	16	16

Table 2 Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Rehabilitation Therapy with MBFT (Biofeedback Group) Characterized by Central Fixation and Eccentric Fixation and Fixation Stability (%) Calculated Before and After Rehabilitation

Microperimetry	Timing	Medium sensitivity	Medium defect	Fixation	Fixation Stability
Group 1 Central Fixation	Pre IVT	9,8 dB	−8,0 dB	predominantly central, stable	Pre rehabilitation 79%
	1° month post IVT	10,9 dB	−8,0 dB	predominantly central, stable
	4° month post IVT	13,5 dB	− 4.8 dB	stable	Post rehabilitation 97%
Central Fixation overall					18%
Group 2 Eccentric Fixation	Pre IVT	2,2 dB	−14,3 dB,	predominantly eccentric, relationally unstable	Pre rehabilitation 50%
	1° month post IVT	8,1 dB	−9,1 dB	predominantly eccentric, relationally unstable
	4° month post IVT	5,2 dB	− 12.3 dB	stable	Post rehabilitation 67%
Eccentric Fixation overall					17%

Table 3 Clinical Evaluation of Patients in the Control Group and Biofeedback Group at T0, T1 and T4 (Mean ± SD) for the Number of Letters (ETDRS), CMT (Central Macular Thickness), MRS (Central Macular Thickness) and Fixation

Parameters evaluated in the Control Group							Parameters evaluated in the Biofeedback Group
	CRVO			BRVO			CRVO			BRVO
	T0	T1	T4	T0	T1	T4	T0	T1	T4	T0	T1	T4
Number of Letter ETDRS	0,86 ± 0.09	28 ± 5.23	20,75 ± 5.32	27,5 ± 5.16	38,13 ± 4.79	37,12 ± 5.94	9,5 ± 5.26	28,75 ± 4.87	24,25 ± 4.5	30,38 ± 9.53	38,75 ± 9.29	44,63 ± 9.24
LogMar	11 ± 4.5	0,58 ± 0.1	0,7 ± 0.08	0,54 ± 0.11	0,31 ± 0.1	0,33 ± 0.14	0,93 ± 0.09	0,53 ± 0.1	0,6 ± 0.12	0,49 ± 0.19	0,3 ± 0.15	0,21 ± 0.17
CMT (µm)	568 ± 29.98	246 ± 25.98	273,75 ± 26.69	428,13 ± 75.84	234 ± 40.35	251,38 ± 42.83	587,25 ± 41.03	247 ± 37.56	259,25±41,24	462,88 ± 50.91	265,37 ± 37.18	269,25 ±15,52
MRS (dB)	3,45 ± 0.82	9 ± 2.1	6,52 ± 2.58	6,9 ± 1.28	9,13 ± 1.99	8,74 ± 2.36	3,02 ± 0.69	10,4 ± 2.58	9,18 ±3,53	7 ± 1.98	9,36 ± 1.54	10,56 ± 2.38
Fixation (%)	37 ± 3.74	70,75 ± 4.03	69,83 ± 4.36	77,38 ± 4.31	81,25 ± 2.92	80,63 ± 2.97	38,25 ± 7.27	72,5 ± 5.44	83,25 ± 7.26	78,12 ± 5.03	83,52 ± 4.57	92,13 ± 5.84

Table 4 Comparison of CRVO and BRVO for the Intervals T0→T1 and T0→T4

CRVO					BRVO
	Biofeedback Group		Control Group		Biofeedback Group		Control Group
	T0→T1	T0→T4	T0→T1	T0→T4	T0→T1	T0→T4	T0→T1	T0→T4
ETDRS	+19	+14	+17	+9	+8	+14	+10	+9
CMT	−340	−328	−322	−295	−197	−193	−204	−187
MRS	+7	+6	+5,6	+3,3	+2,3	+3,5	+2,2	+1,8
Fixation	+34	+46	+33	+32	+5	+14	+4	+3

Figure 1 Development of the LogMar variable over time.

Figure 2 Time course of the ETDRS variable over time.

Figure 3 Development of the CMT (Central Macular Thickness) variable over time.

Figure 4 Development of the MRS (mean retinal sensitivity) variable over time.

Figure 5 Development of the Fixation variable over time.