Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.

PURPOSE: To assess visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes that had previously undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and to compare them with those recorded after implantation of a monofocal IOL. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cases series. METHODS: This study evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), safety, and efficacy after the implantation of two comparable trifocal IOL models and one monofocal IOL model in patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK. Patients were classified according to the implanted IOL (monofocal or trifocal). RESULTS: A total of 211 eyes from 170 patients received a monofocal IOL, and 211 eyes from 161 patients received a trifocal IOL. At the end of the study, after lensectomy, there was a higher myopic residual spherical equivalent in the monofocal group because some eyes had been targeted for slight myopia to achieve monovision; therefore, UDVA was better in the trifocal group. CDVA was comparable in both groups. As expected, both monocular and binocular UNVA were significantly better in the trifocal group. Although the percentage of eyes that lost ≥1 line of CDVA did not differ between the groups, the safety index was slightly better in the monofocal group. CONCLUSION: Although implantation of monofocal and trifocal IOLs after myopic LASIK yielded excellent distance visual outcomes, UNVA was significantly better for the trifocal IOL, with a minimally worse safety profile. Trifocal IOLs can be considered after previous LASIK for myopia, with an appropriate patient selection.

Comparison of Patients With Emmetropia and Presbyopia and Different Accommodation Who Undergo Unilateral or Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal IOL.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and satisfaction in patients with emmetropia, presbyopia, and greater or lesser residual accommodation who undergo unilateral or bilateral implantation of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: A multicenter, multisurgeon study was performed to evaluate outcomes in patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who underwent refractive lens exchange followed by implantation of a FineVision trifocal IOL (PhysIOL). The inclusion criteria were as follows: emmetropia, sphere -0.25 to +0.50 diopters (D), cylinder less than 0.75 D, and manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -0.25 to +0.25 D. All patients also had to have an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of Snellen 0.9 or better in each eye. The sample was divided into different clusters based on two variables: eyes operated on (monocular or binocular) and age either younger than 55 years or 55 years or older. Thus, four possible groups were created. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 690 eyes from 431 patients were evaluated. There was no difference in postoperative uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity between the groups. Binocular uncorrected near vision (UNVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes regardless of age (median [interquartile range]: 0.00 [0.00; 0.10] vs 0.10 [0.00; 0.10] logMAR; P < .001). Binocular uncorrected intermediate vision (UIVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes aged younger than 55 years than in those who underwent surgery in one eye aged 55 years or older (median [interquartile range]: 0.18 [0.10; 0.18] vs 0.30 [0.18; 0.30] logMAR; P < .001). The efficacy and safety indexes were 0.98 ± 0.09 and 1.01 ± 0.06, respectively. A total of 93.3% of eyes were within the 0.50 D range in postoperative MRSE. Visual dysphotopsia was worse in patients with both eyes operated on, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that after refractive lens exchange, patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who received a trifocal IOL in one or both eyes achieved good UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA. Regarding near binocular visual acuity, results were better for patients who underwent surgery on both eyes than for those who underwent surgery on one eye. Regarding binocular intermediate visual acuity, patients aged younger than 55 years with both lenses replaced had better results than those 55 years or older with only one lens replaced. However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA or patient satisfaction. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(12):817-824.].

Laser corneal enhancement after trifocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes that previously had photoablative corneal refractive surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual and refractive outcomes of laser corneal enhancement after trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes previously treated with myopic/hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery (LCRS). SETTING: Clinica Baviera-AIER-Eye Group, Spain. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative case series. METHODS: Patients were divided by primary LCRS into myopic and hyperopic groups. The outcomes evaluated were uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate (UIVA), and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction after implantation of 2 trifocal IOL models (Physiol-FineVision and Zeiss-ATLisa 839) and subsequent laser enhancement. RESULTS: 186 eyes (89 myopic and 97 hyperopic eyes) from 146 patients were assessed. At the last visit, refractive outcomes were better in myopic than those in hyperopic eyes, with statistically significant differences for sphere ( P < .001), cylinder ( P < .001), manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) ( P = .003), CDVA ( P = .005), UDVA ( P = .047), and UNVA ( P = .003) but not for UIVA ( P = .580), binocular UIVA ( P = .660), or binocular UNVA ( P = .836). Predictability differences were nonsignificant between groups for a final MRSE of ±0.5 diopters (D) and ±1.0 D (P = .167 and .502, respectively). Efficacy and safety were similar in both groups ( P = .235 and P = .080). A greater myopic MRSE was present after trifocal implantation in myopic than in hyperopic eyes (MRSE = -0.93 vs -0.69 D, P = .013), and the statistically significant differences were maintained after enhancement between both groups (MRSE -0.00 vs 0.00 D, P = .003). Overall satisfaction was similar in both groups ( P > .05 all items). CONCLUSIONS: Corneal laser enhancement after implantation of a trifocal IOL in eyes previously treated for myopia or hyperopia with LCRS was safe, effective, predictable, and highly satisfactory.

Gene polymorphisms associated with an increased risk of exudative age-related macular degeneration in a Spanish population.

PURPOSE: To identify the association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in CFH, ARMS2, HTRA1, CFB, C2, and C3 genes and exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in a Spanish population. METHODS: In 187 exudative AMD patients and 196 healthy controls (61% women, mean age 75 years), 12 SNPs as risk factors for AMD in CFH (rs1410996, rs1061170, r380390), ARMS2 (rs10490924, rs10490923), HTRA1 (rs11200638), CFB (rs641153), C2 (rs547154, rs9332739), and C3 (rs147859257, rs2230199, rs1047286) genes were analyzed. RESULTS: The G allele was the most frequent in CFH gene (rs1410996) with a 7-fold increased risk of AMD (OR 7.69, 95% CI 3.17-18.69), whereas carriers of C allele in CFH (rs1061170) showed a 3-fold increased risk for AMD (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.93-5.40). In CFH (rs380390), the presence of G allele increased the risk for AMD by 2-fold (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.47-4.30). In ARMS2 (rs10490924), the T-allele was associated with an almost 5-fold increased risk (OR 5.49, 95% CI 3.23-9.31). The A allele in HTRA1 (rs11200638) was more prevalent in AMD versus controls (OR 6.44, 95% CI 3.62-11.47). In C2 gene (rs9332739) the presence of C increased risk for AMD by 3-fold (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.06-9.06). CONCLUSION: SNPs in CFH, ARMS2, HTRA1, and C2 genes were associated in our study with an increased risk for exudative AMD in Spanish patients.

Therapeutic versus Prophylactic Bemiparin in Hospitalized Patients with Nonsevere COVID-19 Pneumonia (BEMICOP Study): An Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is mandatory, unless contraindicated. Given the links between inflammation and thrombosis, the use of higher doses of anticoagulants could improve outcomes. We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in adult patients hospitalized with nonsevere COVID-19 pneumonia and elevated D-dimer. Patients were randomized to therapeutic-dose bemiparin (115 IU/kg daily) versus standard prophylaxis (bemiparin 3,500 IU daily), for 10 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, intensive care unit admission, need of mechanical ventilation support, development of moderate/severe acute respiratory distress, and venous or arterial thrombosis within 10 days of enrollment. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria). A prespecified interim analysis was performed when 40% of the planned study population was reached. From October 2020 to May 2021, 70 patients were randomized at 5 sites and 65 were included in the primary analysis; 32 patients allocated to therapeutic dose and 33 to standard prophylactic dose. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 7 patients (22%) in the therapeutic-dose group and 6 patients (18%) in the prophylactic-dose (absolute risk difference 3.6% [95% confidence interval [CI], -16% -24%]; odds ratio 1.26 [95% CI, 0.37-4.26]; p = 0.95). Discharge in the first 10 days was possible in 66 and 79% of patients, respectively. No major bleeding event was registered. Therefore, in patients with COVID-19 hospitalized with nonsevere pneumonia but elevated D-dimer, the use of a short course of therapeutic-dose bemiparin does not appear to improve clinical outcomes compared with standard prophylactic doses. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04604327.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Emmetropic Presbyopic Patients.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between unilateral and bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in emmetropic patients with presbyopia. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: This is a multicenter, multisurgeon study of emmetropic presbyopes who underwent refractive lens exchange (RLE) followed by an implantation of FineVision IOL (PhysIOL). Inclusion criteria were emmetropic eyes, with a sphere between -0.25 and +0.50 diopters (D), cylinder of less than 0.75 D and spherical equivalent (SE) between -0.25 and +0.25 D. In addition, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) had to be Snellen >0.9 in each eye. A total of 171 eyes of 122 patients were evaluated. This sample was divided into 2 groups depending on whether they have been operated monocularly or binocularly. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were evaluated. RESULTS: UDVA and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained almost unchanged after monocular and binocular surgery. Binocular uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA) were better in those operated binocularly (0.3±0.12 vs 0.22±0.06, P < .063, and 0.09±0.08 vs 0.04±0.05, P < .027, respectively). Predictability and efficacy were higher in the binocular group, whereas safety was better in the monocular group. Visual dysphotopsia was worse and spectacle independence for all distances was higher in binocular group. CONCLUSIONS: Our research shows that RLE with binocular implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL in presbyopic emmetropic patients is more successful in UNVA than monocular implantation. However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA, UIVA, and patient satisfaction.

Effect of Different Quaternary Ammonium Groups on the Hydroxide Conductivity and Stability of Anion Exchange Membranes.

Anion exchange membrane fuel cells (AEMFCs) are encouraging electrochemical structures for the competent and complaisant conversion of energy. Herein, the development of brominated poly(2,6-dimethyl phenylene oxide) (BPPO)-based anion exchange membranes (AEMs) with different quaternary ammonium groups for AEMFCs was reported. The successful preparation of AEMs was proved by utilizing proton nuclear magnetic resonance and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. They were explored in terms of water uptake (W R), ion exchange capacity (IEC), hydration number (λ), linear swelling ratio (LSR), morphology, tensile strength (TS), and elongation at break (E b). The alkaline stability of the prepared AEMs was assessed and compared with each other. The experimental outcomes demonstrated that the N-methylpyrrolidinium-based membrane (MPyPPO) exhibited higher alkaline stability, whereas the N-methylimidazolium-based membrane (MImPPO) showed the lowest alkaline stability among the prepared AEMs. Similarly, the hydroxide conductivity of the prepared AEMs was measured and compared with each other. The pyrrolidinium-based membrane (MPyPPO) exhibited higher hydroxide conductivity among the prepared AEMs.

Magnetic zeolites: novel nanoreactors through radiofrequency heating.

Many catalytic applications use conventional heating to increase the temperature to allow the desired reaction. A novel methodology is presented for the preparation of magnetic zeolite-based catalysts, allowing more efficient radiofrequency heating. These nanoreactors are tested in the isomerisation of citronellal with successful results and without any apparent deactivation.

Las explosiones de polvo en los silos agrícolas

Los productos almacenados en silos agrícolas habitualmente generan polvo el cual en determinadas condiciones puede ser causa de explosión. En el caso de que ésta se produzca, los accidentes suelen ser extremadamente graves, con grandes pérdidas materiales y de vidas humanas. Sin embargo, actualmente es un fenómeno poco conocido y con un desarrollo normativo insuficiente, ésta es la causa de que sea materia de actualidad en la investigación de silos. En el presente artículo, los autores pretenden presentar una visión actualizada del conocimiento de las causas y el comportamiento de las explosiones, así como de las posibles medidas de prevención y protección de las misma, incidiendo en el propio diseño de los silos agrícolas. (AU)