• Vision Restoration Therapy
• About the Therapy
  • FDA Clearance
• Diagnosis/Treatment
  • About Neuroplasticity
• Success Stories
• Research
• News

VRT™ Results Presentation Wins Award at International Conference

09/25/2006

Study: Perimetric Improvement after Vision Restoration Therapy (VRT™) in a Population

Presenting Author: Jose Romano, M.D.

Department/Institution: Associate Professor of Neurology, University of Miami Cerebrovascular Division, Miami, FL

Presented at APAO – Asia Pacific Association of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, June, 2006

Purpose: Although traditionally no specific therapy was available for those with visual field defects from cerebral injury, it has recently been reported that a specific pattern of stimulation directed to the borderzone between the seeing and blind field, an intervention denominated VRT ™, results in a reduction of the field defect. We aimed to corroborate these reports and define the dynamics of the field expansion to improve the implementation of VRT ™.

Methods: Patients with retrochiasmatic insults and homonymous visual field deficits were treated with a 6 module course of VRT ™. High resolution perimetry (HRP), a suprathreshold perimetry of the central 40x50°, was obtained at baseline and after each module. The percent of stimuli detected in each perimetric mapping was considered the primary outcome measure. Age, lesion mechanism and location, and time from injury were recorded.

Results: VRT ™ was completed by 55 patients. The mean absolute improvement in stimuli detection was 13.68% +/-1.96 SEM (from 56.89% to 70.47%). An absolute improvement in central field stimuli detection of >5% was experienced by 37/55 (66.7%). Stimuli detection improvement of >3% after 3 modules resulted in a final absolute expansion of 21.09%, while in those with <3%, the final outcome was 5.27%. Most patients had occipital strokes. Age of patients (mean 57.8, range 17-87 years) and time from onset of visual field defect (mean 40.6, range 3-188 months) did not correlate with the degree of field expansion.

Conclusion: VRT ™ results in improved stimulus detection on HRP. Two thirds experience a significant improvement. Better performance at 3 modules predicts a greater chance of significant field expansion after completion of therapy. Time from injury bears no impact on the effects of VRT ™. These results validate prior reports and support the notion that VRT ™ is a useful rehabilitative intervention for some patients with visual field defects from retrochiasmatic insults.