Advertisement

Influence of Refractive Surgery Complications on Quality of Life

  • Konrad Pesudovs

Abstract

  • A number of questionnaires exist for the measurement of quality of life (QOL) in the refractive surgery patient, but not all questionnaires are equal in validity.

  • Rasch analysis is important in the development of questionnaires to optimize question inclusion, unidimensionality, and to provide valid linear scoring.

  • A quality of life instrument should include a breadth of content areas, e.g., well-being, convenience, and concerns, not just functioning or satisfaction.

  • QOL instruments readily demonstrate the benefits of refractive surgery.

  • A sound QOL instrument is also sensitive to the negative impacts of surgical complications, providing an insight into the real impact of the intervention on the person.

Keywords

Refractive Error Refractive Surgery Night Vision Photorefractive Keratectomy Laser Refractive Surgery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey MD, Mitchell GL, Dhaliwal DK et al (2003) Patient satisfaction and visual symptoms after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology 110:1371–1378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Sira A, Loewenstein A, Lipshitz I et al (1997) Patient satisfaction after 5.0-mm photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Refract Surg 13:129–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry S, Mangione CM, Lindblad AS et al (2003) Development of the National Eye Institute refractive error correction quality of life questionnaire: focus groups. Ophthalmology 110:2285–2291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brunette I, Gresset J, Boivin JF et al (2000) Functional outcome and satisfaction after photorefractive keratectomy. Part 2: survey of 690 patients. Ophthalmology 107:1790–1796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Elliott DB (2005) Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1537–1543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hays RD, Mangione CM, Ellwein L et al (2003) Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. Ophthalmology 110:2292–2301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hill JC (2002) An informal satisfaction survey of 200 patients after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 18:454–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee J, Park K, Cho W et al (2005) Assessing the value of laser in situ keratomileusis by patient-reported outcomes using quality of life assessment. J Refract Surg 21:59–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Likert RA (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:1–55Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM et al (1992) Development of the “Activities of Daily Vision Scale.” A measure of visual functional status. Med Care 30:1111–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massof RW (2002) The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 79:516–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDonnell PJ, Mangione C, Lee P et al (2003) Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error. Ophthalmology 110:2302–2309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGhee CN, Craig JP, Sachdev N et al (2000) Functional, psychological, and satisfaction outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:497–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nichols JJ, Twa MD, Mitchell GL (2005) Sensitivity of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to refractive surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:2313–2318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB (2004) The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci 81:769–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB (2006) A quality of life comparison of people wearing spectacles or contact lenses or having undergone refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 22:19–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schein OD (2000) The measurement of patient-reported out-comes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 98:439–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schein OD, Vitale S, Cassard SD et al (2001) Patient outcomes of refractive surgery. The refractive status and vision profile. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:665–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waring GO, 3rd (2000) Standard graphs for reporting refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 16:459–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright BD, Masters GN (1982) Rating Scale Analysis. MESA Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konrad Pesudovs
    • 1
  1. 1.NH&MRC Centre for Clinical Eye Research, Department of OphthalmologyFlinders Medical Centre and Flinders UniversitySouth AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations