Prospective analysis of visual outcomes using apodized, diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses following phacoemulsification for cataract or clear lens extraction.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate efficacy, safety and predictability of apodized, diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. PARTICIPANTS OR SAMPLE: Two hundred three patients (363 eyes) underwent surgery for cataract (54.8%) or clear lens extraction (45.2%). METHODS: A study of consecutive patients undergoing lens extraction with insertion of the AcrySof Natural ReSTOR intraocular lens (SN60D3). Assessment included: refraction, corneal topography, biometry, monocular and binocular uncorrected and best spectacle corrected distance and near visual acuity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual acuity, spectacle dependence. RESULTS: Mean preoperative best corrected visual acuity was 6/12 (cataract) and 6/6 (clear lens extraction). One hundred sixty-one (98.2%) of the clear lens extraction group were hyperopic and presbyopic (mean spherical equivalent +4.25±3.5D). Postoperatively uncorrected visual acuity was ≥6/12 in 96.5% of eyes (51.9% ≥6/6) and ≥ N5 in 95% of eyes. At 6 months, 182 eyes (91.4%) (cataract) and 137 eyes (83.5%) (clear lens extraction) were ≤0.50 D of target spherical equivalent. Spectacle independence was reported in 81.9% (n=168). Minor halos or other visual phenomena were reported in 10.2%. No subjects required intraocular lens exchange. Safety index at 6 months was 2.5 and 1.17 for cataract and clear lens extraction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The apodized, diffractive multifocal intraocular lens predictably provided excellent near uncorrected visual acuity and good distance uncorrected visual acuity following cataract and clear lens extraction surgery with a high rate of spectacle independence. A minority of subjects note halos and other visual phenomena that may be related to intraocular lens design.

Risk factors for age-related maculopathy.

Age-related maculopathy (ARM) is the leading cause of blindness in the elderly. Although beneficial therapeutic strategies have recently begun to emerge, much remains unclear regarding the etiopathogenesis of this disorder. Epidemiologic studies have enhanced our understanding of ARM, but the data, often conflicting, has led to difficulties with drawing firm conclusions with respect to risk for this condition. As a consequence, we saw a need to assimilate the published findings with respect to risk factors for ARM, through a review of the literature appraising results from published cross-sectional studies, prospective cohort studies, case series, and case control studies investigating risk for this condition. Our review shows that, to date, and across a spectrum of epidemiologic study designs, only age, cigarette smoking, and family history of ARM have been consistently demonstrated to represent risk for this condition. In addition, genetic studies have recently implicated many genes in the pathogenesis of age-related maculopathy, including Complement Factor H, PLEKHA 1, and LOC387715/HTRA1, demonstrating that environmental and genetic factors are important for the development of ARM suggesting that gene-environment interaction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of this condition.

Surgical and visual outcomes following exchange of opacified Hydroview intraocular lenses.

AIM: To report the clinical and surgical outcomes following exchange of opacified Hydroview intraocular lenses (IOLs), and to relate the final visual and anatomic results to clinical and surgical variables. METHODS: This is a prospective study of seventy-three eyes that underwent exchange of opacified Hydroview IOLs in Waterford Regional Hospital, Ireland. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative details were recorded. RESULTS: This study comprised 73 eyes of 71 consecutive patients undergoing IOL exchange, performed at mean (+/-SD) intervals of 36.64 (+/-9.9) months following the primary cataract surgery. The mean (+/-SE) follow-up following the exchange procedure was 13 (+/-1) months (range: 1-45 months). The secondary IOL was placed in the capsular bag, in the sulcus, and in the anterior chamber in 22 (30.1%), 24 (32.9%) and 27 (37%) cases, respectively. The IOL exchange procedure was uneventful in 36 eyes (49.3%), whereas intraoperative events such as posterior capsule rupture, vitreous loss and zonular dehiscence were seen in the remainder (50.7%). Following the IOL exchange procedure, a significant improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was noted at one and at three months, and at the final visit (Wilcoxon signed ranks test: p<0.001, p = 0.006, and p<0.001, respectively). Following exclusion of eyes with visually consequential ocular comorbidity, a better final BCVA was noted among those eyes where the secondary IOL was placed in the capsular bag or in the sulcus when compared with placement of the secondary IOL in the anterior chamber (IOL in the bag or sulcus: 26 eyes (35.6%), median (IQR) final BCVA: 0.2 (0.10-0.40); IOL in the anterior chamber: 19 eyes (26.02%), median (IQR) final BCVA: 0.5 (0.20-0.60); Mann Whitney U Test: p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: IOL exchange is a technically challenging, but visually rewarding procedure. However, placement of the secondary IOL in the anterior chamber is associated with a poorer visual outcome when compared with placement of the secondary IOL in the sulcus or in the capsular bag.

Failure of Listeria monocytogenes keratitis to respond to topical ofloxacin.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this case report is to demonstrate the need for identification of the offending pathogen in bacterial keratitis to guide appropriate treatment. METHODS: Case report. RESULTS: We report a case of Listeria monocytogenes keratitis in a young healthy adult that failed to respond to standard empirical therapy for bacterial keratitis but was treated successfully with topical ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and systemic amoxicillin. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates the need for identification of the offending pathogen to guide appropriate treatment. It also demonstrates discrepancy between in vitro sensitivity and clinical response.