Subject(s)
Lens Implantation, Intraocular , Multifocal Intraocular Lenses , Cornea/surgery , Humans , Lasers , Refraction, OcularABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Complement Factor H , Macular Degeneration , Aged , Complement C2/genetics , Complement Factor H/genetics , Female , Genotype , High-Temperature Requirement A Serine Peptidase 1/genetics , Humans , Macular Degeneration/genetics , Male , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide , Proteins/genetics , SpainABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Hyperopia , Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ , Lenses, Intraocular , Myopia , Humans , Hyperopia/surgery , Lasers , Lens Implantation, Intraocular , Myopia/surgery , Patient Satisfaction , Prosthesis Design , Refraction, Ocular , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
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.
