Endothelial dysfunction of the cornea after exposure to sprayed venom from hornets.

PURPOSE: Ocular injuries due to Hymenoptera venom are uncommon and most injuries occur on the ocular surface. We reported two rare cases of corneal endothelial damage caused by hornet venom that was sprayed, not injected, through stinging in the eye. OBSERVATIONS: Case 1: A 57-year-old male patient was injured when a hornet sprayed venom into his left eye. He was referred to our hospital because the edoema and epithelial erosion of the cornea persisted. The patient presented with bullous keratopathy, asymmetrical iris atrophy, irreversible mydriasis, and glaucoma. His cataract progressed, and his best-corrected visual acuity was 0.03. Cataract surgery was performed after anti-inflammatory treatment with steroids, and Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty was performed 6 months later. The patient recovered well postoperatively: his best-corrected visual acuity improved to 1.0 and he continued his glaucoma treatment. Case 2: A 75-year-old male patient had damage to his corneal epithelium, severe conjunctivitis, and conjunctival edoema when sprayed hornet venom entered his left eye. At initial presentation, the corneal endothelial cell density had decreased to 1042 cells/mm2. The conjunctival sac was washed, and steroid and topical antibacterial instillations were administered. His best-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.07 at the initial visit to 0.5. However, the corneal opacification and glaucoma persisted, and 3 months later the corneal endothelial cell density decreased to 846 cells/mm2. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: Corneal injuries caused by sprayed hornet venom are rare; however, they can cause intense anterior chamber inflammation and severe, irreversible corneal endothelial damage. In such cases, prompt initial treatment, the administration of adequate anti-inflammatory medication, and careful evaluation of the corneal endothelium are required.

Visual function in eyes with diffractive extended depth-of-focus and monofocal intraocular lenses: 2-year comparison.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term visual function after implantation of diffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) using echelett optics and monofocal IOLs with the same platform. METHODS: In this prospective comparative case series, diffractive EDF or monofocal IOLs were implanted binocularly and followed up for 2 years. At the last visit, distance-corrected binocular visual acuities were measured at distances of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1, 2, 3, and 5 m. Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity was also examined. Dynamic visual function was evaluated in terms of functional visual acuity (FVA), standard deviation of visual acuity (SDVA), visual maintenance ratio (VMR), mean response time, and number of blinks. The outcomes were compared between the two IOLs, and the influence of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) on contrast sensitivity and FVA was examined. RESULTS: Binocular visual acuity of eyes with EDF IOLs was better at distances of 0.5 and 0.7 m than that of eyes with monofocal IOL (P < 0.026). There were no differences in binocular visual acuity at other distances, contrast sensitivities, or dynamic visual functions. The influence of PCO on the visual functions was not found in eyes with EDF IOLs. CONCLUSION: Up to 2 years postoperatively, eyes with diffractive EDF IOLs sustained superior intermediate visual acuity together with visual function comparable to that of eyes with monofocal IOLs.