| Sumario: | Background: While the idea of wearable technology for low vision rehabilitation (LVR) has existed for some time, recent advancements in smart phones have significantly improved the features and functions of these devices. Wearable technology offers new and exciting options to enhance performance in the visually impaired population. When activities of daily living (ADLs) cannot be achieved with conventional optics, wearable technology provides an alternative option to help patients accomplish their goals and regain independence. However, the variety of wearable technology available to low vision practitioners today is daunting. It can be difficult to determine not only when it is most appropriate to introduce wearable technology into LVR, but also to determine which device will be most suitable for the patient. Case Reports: Four legally blind patients were admitted to the Eastern Blind Rehabilitation Center in West Haven, Connecticut for an inpatient LVR program. Before their admission, three out of the four patients had received prior LVR and had been prescribed various low vision devices. Despite using the devices, they all reported having difficulty when performing some of their ADLs. All patients presented with reduced visual acuity and poor contrast sensitivity OU. Except for one patient, each had significant peripheral visual field loss, further compromising visual function. Wearable technology was evaluated and recommended to address visual goals not being met with their current low vision aids. After extensive training with a blind rehabilitation specialist, all of the patients were better able to perform their ADLs using wearable technology. Discussion: Wearable technology provides an opportunity to extend the benefits of conventional low vision aids and LVR to patients who have unique functional needs not adequately met by current treatment options alone. The process of recommending wearable technology may not be simple and typically requires consideration of several factors that may influence the patient's success using the device. This paper will discuss the different types of wearable technology, emphasizing the devices prescribed in the four cases: the Patriot ViewPoint, NuEyes Pro, OrCam MyEye 2.0, and Aira Horizon Kit. The practical applications of wearable technology, patient and device selection criteria, and the current pros and cons of these devices will be reviewed.
|
|---|