Search

settingsOrder Article Reprints Open AccessArticle Changes in Accommodative and Binocular Function following Phakic Intraocular Lens for High and Low-to-Moderate Myopia by Esther López-Artero 1ORCID,Francisco Poyales 1,Nuria Garzón 1,2ORCID,Alicia Matamoros 1,Alba Sáez 1,Ying Zhou 3ORCID andMaría García-Montero 1,2,* 1 Miranza Group, C/Galileo 104, 28003 Madrid, Spain 2 Optometry and Vision Department, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28037 Madrid, Spain 3 OCULUS Iberia, S.L., Tres Cantos, 28760 Madrid, Spain * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(11), 6716; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116716 Received: 27 April 2022 / Revised: 27 May 2022 / Accepted: 28 May 2022 / Published: 31 May 2022 Download Versions Notes Abstract The aim was to evaluate accommodative and binocular function of phakic intraocular lens implantable collamer lens (ICL) in high and low-to-moderate myopia. Prospective comparative cohort study with 38 myopic patients who underwent ICL implantation were divided into two groups of 19 patients, each one based on the spherical equivalent (SE): high-power (SE ≤ −6 D) and low-to-moderate (SE > −6 D). The push-up amplitude of accommodation (AA), monocular accommodative facility (MAF), distance and near ocular deviation, near convergence amplitude, near point convergence (NPC), stereopsis, and accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio were assessed before surgery and 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. The mean residual refractive error at 1 month after surgery improved in both groups, 0.18 ± 0.34 D and 0.09 ± 0.26 D, respectively (p < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in AA in both groups between preoperatively and at 1-week (p = 0.001; p = 0.008, respectively) and 1-month follow-up (p = 0.001; p = 0.008). For the rest of the binocular measurements, no statistically significant postoperative changes were found in any group. This finding suggests, Depto. de Optometría y Visión, Fac. de Óptica y Optometría, TRUE, pub

CRUE-CSIC (Acuerdos Transformativos 2021), Purpose: In the event that any ocular parameter involved in the calculation of intraocular lens power could not be properly measured in one eye, it is important to know whether clinically relevant differences between both eyes can be expected. The aim of this work is to evaluate the symmetry of interocular biometric parameters. Methods: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study involving 4090 subjects. Patients underwent consecutive swept-source optical biometry performed with an IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). The biometric parameters that were evaluated were: axial length (AL), mean anterior curvature (Rm), anterior chamber depth (ACD), crystalline lens thickness (LT), central corneal thickness (CCT) and white-to-white (WTW). The Chang-Waring chord distance (CWC-D) and the Chang-Waring chord angle (CWC-A) were also evaluated. Results: There is an excellent correlation between both eyes for almost all the biometric parameters under study, with the exception of the CWC. Agreement for AL was better for eyes shorter than 24 mm. The linearity of the OD-vs-OS relationship can be correctly assumed for all parameters (Cusum test: p > 0.05 in all cases). Conclusion: There are no clinically significant interocular differences for the biometric parameters under study, although for all of them, except the LT, statistically significant differences did arise. In the case of AL, moderate differences can be expected in eyes larger than 24 mm., Depto. de Optometría y Visión, Fac. de Óptica y Optometría, TRUE, pub

Recibido: 11 enero 2020; Aceptado: 29 junio 2020, Purpose: To assess differences in a new objective metric obtained with a double-pass technique between a group with accommodation insufficiency (AI) and a control group and to explore the diagnostic capabilities of this new tool in comparison to conventional procedures. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional case-control phase 1 study. Two groups age ranging from 8 to 18 years were recruitment: AI and control group. The diagnostic criterion of AI was based on monocular accommodative amplitude (AA) 2 D below Hofstetter’s calculation for minimum AA and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) failing with minus lens and cut-off at ≤ 6 cycles per minute. Accommodative response with a double pass device (HD Analyzer, Visiometrics) was measured, performing an evaluation from +1.00 D to −3.50D (−0.5D steps), offering the width of the profile at 50% (WP) in minutes of arc. Results: Differences were found between groups for the AA, MAF and MEM retinoscopy (p < 0.0001, p < 0.001, p = 0.037). The discriminative capacity of MEM retinoscopy for AI diagnosis was significant and the cut-off that maximized the sensitivity and specificity was > 0.5 D. Considering WP 50% in different points, the discriminative AI diagnosis capacities for the points of 2.0 D and 2.50 D were significant (ROC-AUC 0.78; p = 0.03 and p = 0.02). Conclusions: Double-pass system metric differed between patients with AI and control group, therefore the aim of a Phase I study was achieved. Further steps with higher sample sizes are required to evidence if the system really provides any advantage versus conventional methods in the diagnosis of AI., Depto. de Optometría y Visión, Fac. de Óptica y Optometría, TRUE, inpress

Received April 05, 2019; revised form November 27, 2019; Accepted February 08, 2020, Purpose: To evaluate changes in angle kappa following the implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL), and to assess the postoperative outcomes of patients with different angle kappa values. Setting: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain Design: Prospective trial Methods: Sixty-three patients due to have bilateral implantation of the diffractive trifocal IOL (POD F, PhysIOL, Belgium) were included. Pupil offset was used as the best estimate of angle kappa and was measured using Pentacam (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) preoperatively and at 3-months after surgery. Postoperative refractive outcomes (sphere, cylinder, and MRSE) and visual outcomes at far, intermediate and near distance were assessed and compared between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. Quality of vision was assessed using a subjective questionnaire. Results: There was significant decrease in pupil offset post-operatively (mean: 0.197 ± 0.12 mm) compared to preoperatively (mean: 0.239 ± 0.12 mm), with a mean decrease of -0.042 mm (P = 0.0002). The same significant decrease was found for both the right eyes and left eyes, when analysed separately. No statistically significant difference was found in any of the refractive and visual acuity outcomes between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. The majority of patients (14 out of 16) complaining of significant halos had eyes with small pupil offset. Conclusion: Large pupil offset did not negatively affect visual and refractive outcomes. The tolerance to larger pupil offset might be due to the IOL optical design, with the first diffractive ring being larger than other commonly used multifocal IOLs. More studies comparing various diffractive IOL models will be useful to confirm such hypothesis., Depto. de Optometría y Visión, Fac. de Óptica y Optometría, TRUE, pub

Postprint (published version)