Phacoemulsification with implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens in eyes with asteroid hyalosis and synchysis scintillans.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes in both eyes of patients who undergo phacoemulsification and trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and have asteroid hyalosis (AH) or synchysis scintillans (SS) in only one eye. METHODS: A retrospective comparative case series was performed. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction after implantation of the same model of trifocal IOL in both eyes (PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F and Micro-F and Rayner RayOne Trifocal). RESULTS: A total of 164 eyes of 82 patients (41 females, 50%) met the inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent, UDVA, UIVA, or UNVA between the groups. Postoperative CDVA was slightly better in the control group (logMAR 0.03) than in the AH/SS group (logMAR 0.04) (P: 0.014). There were no statistically significant differences in predictability, safety index, or efficacy index between the groups. Overall subjective satisfaction was good (98.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Visual outcomes and satisfaction are good after implantation of trifocal IOLs in eyes with AH or SS. Therefore, trifocal IOLs should not be ruled out in these patients when no other vitreoretinal disorder is present.

Visual outcomes of combined use of implantable collamer lens implantation and laser corneal visual correction for myopia over -18.00 diopters.

PURPOSE: This retrospective comparative case series explores visual outcomes in patients with extreme myopia receiving an implantable collamer lens (ICL) at -18.00 diopters (D), with central port, followed by bioptics via laser vision correction (LASIK or PRK) to address residual myopia or myopic astigmatism. SETTING: The study was conducted at Clínica Baviera - Aier Eye Hospital Group, Spain. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of cases. METHODS: The study assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction after implantation of the ICL and bioptics. The model implanted was V4c and EVO (Staar Surgical), with a correction of -18.00 D. Bioptics were performed at least 3 months after implantation, and patients were followed up for at least 3 months after LASIK or PRK. RESULTS: The analysis included 125 eyes from 90 patients. Of these, 51.2% underwent LASIK and 48.8% PRK. Mean time from implantation to bioptics was 5.9 ± 9.4 months. Patients were followed up for a mean of 40.2 ± 37.9 months after bioptics. Median manifest refractive spherical equivalent was -2.89 D before bioptics and -0.49 D after. Median CDVA was 0.18 logMAR before bioptics and 0.17 after. The mean safety and efficacy indices were 2.22 ± 1.88 and 2.06 ± 1.85, respectively. CONCLUSION: Visual outcomes and safety indices following ICL implantation and subsequent LASIK or PRK in patients with extreme myopia are excellent.

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.].

Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of two models of trifocal intraocular lenses in eyes with previous corneal ablation to treat hyperopia.

BACKGROUND: To assess whether a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with neutral spherical aberration (SA) provides better visual and refractive outcomes than a trifocal IOL with negative SA after hyperopic corneal laser ablation. METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified according to the IOL implanted after cataract or clear lens phacoemulsification [group 1, PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (negative SA); group 2, Rayner RayOne Trifocal (neutral SA)]. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction. RESULTS: 198 eyes of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 120 eyes and group 2 comprised 78 eyes. At completion, the refractive and predictability results were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 for manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) (P < 0.001). Differences were not significant for UDVA (P = 0.647), CDVA (P = 0.343), UIVA (P = 0.059), UNVA (P = 0.382), binocular UIVA (P = 0.157), or binocular UNVA (P = 0.527). Safety and efficacy indices in refractive lens exchange (RLE) eyes were 0.96 and 0.91, and 0.89 and 0.93 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.254 and 0.168). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (P > 0.05, all items). CONCLUSION: In eyes previously treated with hyperopic corneal ablation, implantation of a trifocal IOL with neutral SA provided better efficacy and safety outcomes but worse predictability outcomes than those obtained with a trifocal model with negative SA.

Visual outcomes after vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane in pseudophakic eyes with a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs) could affect visual acuity in patients with macular pathologies such as epiretinal membrane (ERM) and could influence the results of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for ERM removal in pseudophakic eyes with these IOLs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect on visual outcomes of a diffractive trifocal IOL in PPV for ERM peeling. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study on 20 eyes with a single model of trifocal IOL that underwent PPV for removal of ERM between January 2015 and September 2018 in our clinics. Follow up was at least 1 year. Primary outcome measure was mean change in visual acuity. Secondary outcome measures were mean change in central macular thickness (CMT), recovery of the external retinal layers, and change in spherical equivalent (SE). RESULTS: Mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 0.03 ± 0.03 logMAR after phacoemulsification; this worsened to 0.23 ± 0.10 logMAR with ERM, improving to 0.10 ± 0.04 log MAR 12 months after PPV (p = 0.001). Mean uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was Jaeger 2.62 ± 0.51 after lensectomy. This worsened to Jaeger 5.46 ± 1.67 with ERM and improved to the initial Jaeger 2.69 ± 0.84 after PPV (p = 0.005). CMT decreased significantly, from 380.15 ± 60.50 µm with the ERM to 313.70 ± 36.98 µm after PPV. Mean SE after lensectomy was - 0.18 ± 0.38 D, which minimally changed to - 0.18 ± 0.47 D after PPV (p = 0.99). The only complication recorded after PPV was a case of cystoid macular edema. No difficulties in visualization due to IOL design were reported during PPV. CONCLUSION: PPV for ERM in eyes with this trifocal IOL seems to be safe and effective, and allows recovery of the loss of UNVA.

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.

Recommendations for ophthalmologic practice during the easing of COVID-19 control measures.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper provides recommendations for medical eye care during the easing of control measures after lockdown. The guidelines presented are based on a literature review and consensus among all Spanish Ophthalmology Societies regarding protection measures recommended for the ophthalmologic care of patients with or without confirmed COVID-19 in outpatient, inpatient, emergency and surgery settings. We recommend that all measures be adapted to the circumstances and availability of personal protective equipment at each centre and also highlight the need to periodically update recommendations as we may need to readopt more restrictive measures depending on the local epidemiology of the virus. These guidelines are designed to avoid the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among both patients and healthcare staff as we gradually return to normal medical practice, to prevent postoperative complications and try to reduce possible deficiencies in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of the ophthalmic diseases. With this update (5th ) the Spanish Society of Ophthalmology is placed as one of the major ophthalmology societies providing periodic and systematized recommendations for ophthalmic care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Laser in Situ Keratomileusis and Surface Ablation in Breastfeeding Patients.

PURPOSE: Our objectives were to determine the anatomical and functional (visual and refractive) outcomes of corneal refractive surgery during breastfeeding and to compare the results with those of women who stopped breastfeeding at least 3 months before the procedure. We also evaluated predictability, safety, and efficacy indexes; number of retreatments; and adverse effects reported in babies. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, interventional case series review of patients who were breastfeeding and who underwent laser in situ keratomileusis or surface ablation (photorefractive keratectomy) from September 11, 2002 to December 12, 2017 (group 1, n = 142 eyes in the case group). Patients were compared with women who stopped breastfeeding at least 3 months before the procedure from September 11, 2002 to December 12, 2017 (group 2, n = 95 eyes in the control group). A total of 168 women (237 eyes) were included. Patients were incorporated consecutively. Functional (visual and refractive) and anatomical outcomes are described. RESULTS: No significant intraoperative or postoperative complications were recorded. There were no significant differences between the groups in visual acuity, postoperative spherical equivalent, efficacy index, predictability, safety index, or retreatments. No infants experienced adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy can be performed effectively and safely in breastfeeding women.

Outcomes of Flap Lift Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Enhancements in a Large Patient Population: Does Application of a Bandage Contact Lens Affect Incidence of Epithelial Ingrowth?

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of corneal epithelial ingrowth (EIG) and the visual outcomes of enhancement with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) by flap lift when a bandage soft contact lens (CL) was fitted after the procedure and when it was not. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective, interventional case series in which all patients who underwent LASIK enhancement from January 2005 to January 2015 were included consecutively. Patients were grouped depending on whether a bandage CL was fitted after re-treatment by flap lift (group 1) or not (group 2). RESULTS: A total of 16,702 eyes from 12,485 patients were included. There were statistically significant differences between the groups regarding corrected distance visual acuity (better in group 1) and safety index (better in group 2) although these were not clinically relevant. The incidence of EIG was 0.58% in group 1 and 0.55% in group 2 although, again, the difference was not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: We found no relevant differences in LASIK enhancement between patients who received a bandage CL and those who did not regarding the incidence of EIG and visual outcomes.

Outcomes of Laser In Situ Keratomileusis and Photorefractive Keratectomy in Patients Taking Isotretinoin.

PURPOSE: To determine the functional outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in patients taking isotretinoin, which is contraindicated for these procedures. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: All patients taking isotretinoin who underwent LASIK or PRK from January 2003 to September 2017 were included (Group 1). Patients were compared with those undergoing LASIK or PRK who had taken isotretinoin previously but not in the previous 6 months (Group 2). Patients were included consecutively. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients (219 eyes) were included. No significant intraoperative or postoperative complications were found. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of visual acuity, postoperative spherical equivalent, efficacy index, predictability, or safety index. When only PRK patients were taken into account, the efficacy index (P = .017), postoperative sphere (P = .041), and postoperative astigmatism (P < .001) were better in Group 2, although the difference was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, LASIK and PRK can be performed effectively and safely in selected patients taking isotretinoin. The absolute exclusion of certain systemic medications should be reconsidered.

Visual Outcomes Following Bilateral lmplantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses in 10 084 Eyes.

PURPOSE: To investigate refractive and visual acuity outcomes, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence at 3 months of 2 diffractive (non-toric) trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in a large series of patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, nonrandomized clinical study. METHODS: Patients underwent lens phacoemulsification and were implanted bilaterally with a diffractive trifocal IOL: FineVision Micro F (PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or AT Lisa tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss AG, Jena, Germany). Surgeries were performed between 2011 and 2015 with at least 3 months of follow-up. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 10 084 trifocal IOLs were bilaterally implanted (5802 FineVision in 2901 patients and 4282 AT Lisa in 2141 patients). Three-month mean (± standard deviation) acuity: AT Lisa, binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), -0.01 logMAR ± 0.06; monocular distance corrected visual acuity (CDVA), 0.02 logMAR ± 0.06; binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm, 0.05 logMAR ± 0.08; binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 80 cm, -0.05 logMAR ± 0.14; postoperative spherical equivalent, 0.26 D ± 0.47; cylinder -0.34 D ± 0.38; FineVision Micro F, binocular UDVA, 0.01 logMAR ± 0.05; monocular CDVA, 0.03 logMAR ± 0.06; binocular UNVA, 0.05 logMAR ± 0.08; binocular UIVA, -0.05 logMAR ± 0.12; spherical equivalent, 0.34 D ± 0.50; cylinder -0.39 D ± 0.40. The IOLs were equivalent in achieving spectacle independence; 98% were "satisfied" to "very satisfied" with their IOL performance. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study with over 5000 patients, implantation of both trifocal IOL models provided good functional distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity, resulting in high levels of both spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.

Nd:YAG Capsulotomy Rates With Two Trifocal Intraocular Lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates following implantation of two diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: This multi-center retrospective analysis included patients who underwent uncomplicated lens phacoemulsification and were implanted with a diffractive trifocal IOL: FineVision MicroF (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) or AT Lisa tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). All surgeries were performed during the same period. The postoperative follow-up period was at least 1 year. Chi-square and Kaplan-Meier tests analyzed non-parametric estimates for survival/failure functions. The Wilcoxon (Breslow) test compared Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Of 5,130 eyes included, 3,387 were implanted with the FineVision MicroF IOL and 1,743 with the AT Lisa tri 839MP IOL. There were no statistical differences in age, axial length, or IOL power between groups. Nd:YAG capsulotomies were necessary in 330 eyes (9%) in the FineVision group and 408 eyes (23%) in the AT Lisa tri group (P < .001). The probability of having Nd:YAG capsulotomy up to 9 months postoperatively was equal for both lenses. Beyond 9 months, the Nd:YAG capsulotomy rate increased significantly more in the AT Lisa tri group, reaching a probability of 35% for eyes with a follow-up of 34 to 44 months, whereas in the FineVision group the probability was 14% after a follow-up of 37 to 47 months. The differences in survival (without Nd:YAG capsulotomy)/failure (with Nd:YAG capsulotomy) functions were significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Eyes implanted with the FineVision MicroF IOL required significantly fewer Nd:YAG laser capsulotomies than those with the AT Lisa tri 839MP IOL during the first years after implantation. The design of the IOL platforms could account for these differences. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(11):748-752.].

Comparison Between Mix-and-Match Implantation of Bifocal Intraocular Lenses and Bilateral Implantation of Trifocal Intraocular Lenses.

PURPOSE: To investigate the visual outcomes between mix-and-match bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) (ReSTOR +2.50 and +3.00 diopters [D]; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) versus bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL (FineVision; PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). METHODS: Twenty-three patients (average age: 56.3 ± 6.9 years; range: 45 to 71 years) referred for lens phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. The FineVision group was bilaterally implanted with the FineVision trifocal IOL and the ReSTOR group was implanted with mix-and-match bifocal ReSTOR +2.50 and +3.00 D IOLs. A 3-month postoperative check was performed, and manifest refraction and logMAR uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance and near visual acuities were recorded. Monocular and binocular defocus curve testing was performed under photopic (85 cd/m2) conditions in 0.50-D defocus steps. Contrast sensitivity was measured monocularly and binocularly under mesopic conditions at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree using the CSV-1000 contrast test (VectorVision, Greenville, OH). RESULTS: There were no reported differences in monocular distance visual acuity or refractive outcomes between groups (P > .05). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity between the three IOLs (P > .05). The FineVision group achieved better monocular and binocular near and intermediate visual acuities under defocus curve testing than the ReSTOR group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Binocular implantation of the FineVision trifocal IOL provided a better range of visual acuities at near and intermediate distances than mix-and-match bifocal IOL implantation. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(10):659-663.].

Incidence of corneal infections after laser in situ keratomileusis and surface ablation when moxifloxacin and tobramycin are used as postoperative treatment.

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence, culture results, and visual outcomes of infectious keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and surface ablation when topical moxifloxacin was added to postoperative prophylaxis with tobramycin. SETTING: Clínica Baviera, Instituto Oftalmológico Europeo, Bilbao, Spain. DESIGN: Retrospective case series review. METHODS: The medical records of 55 255 patients (108 014 eyes) who had LASIK and surface ablation were reviewed to identify cases of infectious keratitis. The incidence, risk factors, clinical course, days to diagnosis, treatment, and final visual outcomes were recorded. These data were compared with previously published data of 221 437 eyes that received postoperative tobramycin alone. RESULTS: Post-LASIK infectious keratitis was diagnosed in 10 eyes (9 patients) and post-surface ablation infectious keratitis in 11 eyes (10 patients). The onset of infection was early in 40.00% of cases after LASIK and in 36.36% after surface ablation. Cultures were positive in 2 cases after surface ablation. Immediate flap lifting and irrigation with antibiotics were performed in all eyes after LASIK. The final corrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 7 cases after LASIK (70.00%) and 7 cases after surface ablation (63.64%) and 20/40 or better in all cases after LASIK or surface ablation. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of infectious keratitis decreased from 0.025% to 0.011% (P < .001) per procedure after LASIK and from 0.200% to 0.066% (P < .001) after surface ablation. Infectious keratitis was less frequent after LASIK than after surface ablation. The frequency of infection, mainly early-onset infection, was lower when the postoperative treatment was tobramycin and moxifloxacin rather than tobramycin alone. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

A randomized crossover study comparing trehalose/hyaluronate eyedrops and standard treatment: patient satisfaction in the treatment of dry eye syndrome.

Dry eye is a common disorder in routine ophthalmological practice, and a better understanding of the complex pathophysiology is leading to improved treatment. Thealoz Duo(®) is a novel artificial tear preparation containing two active ingredients: Trehalose, a naturally occurring disaccharide with anhydrobiotic functions in many organisms, and hyaluronate, a widely distributed anionic glycosaminoglycan polysaccharide with lubricative and water-retaining properties in biological systems. In a randomized, single center, open label, crossover study, 17 adult patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye syndrome were randomized to treatment with Thealoz Duo(®) (combining trehalose and hyaluronic acid) or Systane(®). Patients received 7 days of treatment. The primary efficacy variable was patient satisfaction evaluated by a 0-100 visual analog scale evaluated on days 0 and 7 of treatment. Secondary parameters included ocular surface disease index (OSDI), symptoms of dry eye, ocular staining scores (fluorescein and lissamine green), ocular clinical signs, Schirmer test, tear breakup time, and global efficacy assessed by the patient and the investigator. Seventeen patients were included. Patient satisfaction improved from 44.5±19.0 to 70.2±19.2 mm during Thealoz Duo(®) treatment and from 47.2±23 to 57.1±19.1 mm during Systane(®) treatment (P=0.043, mixed-effects analysis of covariance). Two secondary efficacy parameters (dry eye symptoms and the impact of their symptoms on work) showed statistically significant advantages for Thealoz Duo(®) over Systane(®). There were no statistically significant advantages for Systane(®) over Thealoz Duo(®) for any measured parameter. No adverse events were reported. Thealoz Duo(®) appears to be an effective combination of two active ingredients for the treatment of dry eye and is at least as effective as Systane(®).

Incidencia de la queratitis infecciosa y resultados de 351 712 procedimientos de cirugía refractiva con láser excimer / Infectious keratitis incidence and outcomes for 351 712 laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis surgical procedures with excimer laser

Estudiar la incidencia de queratitis infecciosas (QI) tras la cirugía refractiva con láser excimer (laser assisted in situ keratomileusis [LASIK] y ablación de superficie [AS]: LASEK y PRK) el diagnóstico, la actitud terapéutica adoptada, el manejo y los resultados. Material y método: Hemos realizado un estudio retrospectivo multicéntrico en 351 712 ojos intervenidos consecutivamente, de todos aquellos casos susceptibles de ser diagnosticados como QI por la clínica o los hallazgos biológicos. Resultado: Se recolectó un total de 147 casos de QI (lo que supone una incidencia del 0.0417%) ; en 100 casos lo fueron tras la LASIK (0.0307%) y 47 tras la AS (0.176%). La infección corneal se presentó en el 57.8% en el ojo derecho y en el 42.2% en el ojo izquierdo; en 12 pacientes la presentación fue bilateral. El tiempo transcurrido desde la cirugía LASIK hasta el comienzo de los síntomas fue de 16 ± 32 días, fue temprano en el 62%; tras la AS, fue a los 13 ± 26 días (rango: 1 a 160), el 71.79% se presentó en la primera semana. En 23 casos, tras la LASIK, de los 74 en los que se tomaron muestras, el resultado del cultivo fue positivo. Se tomaron muestras en 33 casos de la serie de AS, 15 de los cuales fueron positivos. En el grupo de LASIK, el 22% de los ojos perdió una o más líneas de su agudeza visual lejana corregida (CDVA), mientras que en el 53% de los ojos la visión final fue de 20/20 y en el 95% lo fue de 20/40 o mejor. En 31 ojos (66%) del grupo de AS se mantiene la CDVA; la visión final fue de 20/20 en el 54.7% y de 20/40 en el 93.6% de los ojos. Conclusiones: La incidencia de infección después de la LASIK es baja, pero la tasa de infección después de la AS es estadísticamente más elevada. La aparición de esta complicación en pacientes asintomáticos subraya la necesidad de revisiones posoperatorias. No hemos encontrado diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre la agudeza visual final tras infecciones después de AS y de LASIK...

Interface fluid syndrome in routine cataract surgery 10 years after laser in situ keratomileusis.

PURPOSE: Interface fluid syndrome is an unusual complication after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). We present a case of interface fluid syndrome after cataract surgery in a patient who had previous LASIK surgery. METHODS: A 62-year-old man underwent routine cataract surgery on the left eye 10 years after LASIK on both eyes. The day after surgery, the intraocular pressure (IOP) was 21 mm Hg and a pocket of fluid was present in the interface LASIK wound. The patient was treated with 0.50% timolol eye drops twice daily. RESULTS: The problem resolved within 1.5 months. Two months later, the patient underwent routine cataract surgery of the right eye. The next day, the IOP was 11 mm Hg and LASIK interface fluid was present. The patient was treated with 0.5% timolol eye drops twice daily. Two months after the surgery, the problem had completely resolved. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular hypertension and traumatic endothelial cell damage could have been the causes of the syndrome. Although the IOP was not very high, previous LASIK could have led us to underestimate the IOP.