English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

One hundred consecutive patients who underwent bilateral pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy were assessed in accordance with the UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) guidelines. Visual acuity was documented, and visual fields were assessed using the Esterman test. Among the 30% of patients who failed to reach the visual standards required for a driving licence, three groups were identified: those who failed to attain either the required binocular visual acuity (n = 4), or visual fields (n = 9), or both (n = 17). Previous studies reveal a large variation in DVLA field test failure following PRP treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Our results show a 19% failure rate solely attributable to treatment, which is at the lower end of previously reported studies (20-80%). The reasons for this discrepancy are discussed. We conclude that modern treatment procedures for proliferative diabetic retinopathy may be undertaken with the knowledge that in the majority of cases a patient's driving licence is unlikely to be revoked.

How much blame can be placed on laser photocoagulation for failure to attain driving standards?