Validity and repeatability of the Aladdin ocular biometer.

AIM: To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of biometry undertaken with the Aladdin (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) in comparison with the current gold standard device, the IOLMaster 500 (Zeiss, Jena, Germany). SETTING: University Eye Clinic, Birmingham, UK and Refractive Surgery Centre, Kiel, Germany. METHODS: The right eye of 75 patients with cataracts and 22 healthy participants were assessed using the two devices. Measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and keratometry (K) were undertaken with the Aladdin and IOLMaster 500 in random order by an experienced practitioner. A second practitioner then obtained measurements for each participant using the Aladdin biometer in order to assess interobserver variability. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences (p>0.05) between the two biometers were found for average difference (AL)±95% CI=0.01±0.06 mm), ACD (0.00±0.11 mm) or mean K values (0.08±0.51 D). Furthermore, interobserver variability was very good for each parameter (weighted κ≥0.85). One patient's IOL powers could not be calculated with either biometer measurements, whereas a further three could not be analysed by the IOLMaster 500. The IOL power calculated from the valid measurements was not statistically significantly different between the biometers (p=0.842), with 91% of predictions within±0.25 D. CONCLUSIONS: The Aladdin is a quick, easy-to-use biometer that produces valid and reproducible results that are comparable with those obtained with the IOLMaster 500.

Rock 'n' roll phacoemulsification technique: noncracking and nonchopping approach.

The rock 'n' roll phaco technique we describe does not require nucleus chopping or cracking. In this easy-to-learn technique, the lens nucleus is fragmented from both sides, which seems to be an advantage in very soft nuclei.

A new method of cornea modulation with excimer laser for simultaneous correction of presbyopia and ametropia.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of simultaneous correction of presbyopia and ametropia by a bi-aspheric cornea modulation technique, based on the creation of a central area hyperpositive for near vision and leaving the pericentral cornea for far vision in hyperopic, emmetropic, and myopic presbyopic patients. SETTING: Sixty eyes of 30 patients were treated with the PresbyMAX technique by one surgeon (D.U.) at the Eye Hospital Bellevue, Kiel, Germany. METHODS: Twenty eyes with hyperopic presbyopia, 20 eyes with emmetropic presbyopia, and 20 eyes with myopic presbyopia underwent Femto-Lasik, and were assessed up to 6 months postoperatively. All eyes underwent cornea treatment using the PresbyMAX® software, delivering a bi-aspheric multifocal ablation profile developed by SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions (Kleinostheim, Germany). All flaps were created by Ziemer LDV Femtolaser (Port, Switzerland). RESULTS: The mean binocular distance of uncorrected visual acuity (DUCVA) improved in the hyperopic group from 0.28 ± 0.29 logMAR to -0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR, in the emmetropic group from -0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR to 0.02 ± 0.11 logMAR, and in the myopic group from 0.78 ± 0.27 logMAR to 0.09 ± 0.08 logMAR. The mean binocular near uncorrected visual acuity (NUCVA) increased in the hyperopic group from 0.86 ± 0.62 logRAD to 0.24 ± 0.23 logRAD, and in the emmetropic group from 0.48 ± 0.14 logRAD to 0.18 ± 0.11 logRAD. The myopic presbyopes showed a decrease of the mean binocular NUCVA from 0.04 ± 0.19 logRAD to 0.12 ± 0.18 logRAD. The mean postoperative spherical equivalent for distance refraction was -0.13 ± 0.61 D for the hyperopic presbyopia, -0.43 ± 0.35 D for the emmetropic presbyopia, and -0.68 ± 0.42 D for the myopic presbyopia group, whereas the software took aim at -0.50 D in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In presbyopic patients without symptomatic cataracts, but refractive errors, PresbyMAX® will decrease the presbyopic symptoms and correct far distance refraction in the same treatment, offering spectacle-free vision in daily life in most of the treated patients. Further investigation is necessary to evaluate the overall benefit of this procedure.

Laserinterferometric measurements of accommodative changes in the position of an optic-shift intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To measure optically and pharmacologically induced movement of an optic-shift intraocular lens (HumanOptics 1CU). METHODS: The change in position as well as the accommodative effect of the 1CU was determined using an anterior chamber laser interferometer (Zeiss ACMaster) in 15 eyes of 9 patients. Accommodation was induced by optical stimulus and pharmacologically by pilocarpine 2%. RESULTS: The mean forward movement due to optical-induced accommodation stimulation was 5 +/- 14 microm (range: -10 to + 40 microm). Pharmacological stimulation with 2% pilocarpine caused mean anterior movements of 93 +/- 162 microm (range: -321 to +/- 402 microm). CONCLUSIONS: A maximum accommodative effect of 0.50 diopters was measured with this method. This relatively small accommodative effect of the 1CU is in agreement with other studies. Pharmacologically induced optic shift differs significantly from optically induced shift and allows no conclusion on a clinically expected accommodative effect.

Potentially accommodating 1CU intraocular lens: 1-year results in 553 eyes and literature review.

PURPOSE: To investigate the advantages, clinical outcomes, and safety after implantation of the 1CU (HumanOptics AG) optic shift intraocular lens (IOL) in comparison with a conventional monofocal IOL. METHODS: In a prospective non-randomized study, 553 eyes implanted with the 1CU IOL were examined. In a control group, a monofocal posterior chamber IOL (MCTE, Dr Schmidt) was implanted in 219 eyes. Follow-up was performed at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The clinical effect for near visual acuity was evaluated by subjective measurements using an accommodometer, defocusing curve, and Nieden charts. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in distance best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) between groups. Average near visual acuity with distance BSCVA for the 1CU was 0.41 and 0.35 for the control group. The difference in the accommodation response between both groups measured with the accommodometer was 11 cm (P < .01). The refraction tolerance for the 1CU was 0.25 D whereas the MCTE revealed no refraction tolerance (P < .01). Decentration and tilting of the 1CU resulted in explantation of three IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: The 1CU indicates a minor statistical advantage of half a reading step towards monofocal IOLs measured with subjective methods in near point, defocusing curve, and near visual acuity with distance BSCVA. This could be due to pseudophakic accommodation by the optic shift mechanism or a result of additional pseudophakic pseudoaccommodation. The accommodative effect of the 1CU differed from patient to patient and was not predictable.