RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare precision of pupil size measurements of a multifunctional device (Pentacam AXL Wave (OCULUS; abbreviated as Pentacam) and two infrared based pupillometers (PupilX (Albomed), Colvard (Oasis medical)) and to compare repeatability of Pentacam and PupilX. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative trial. METHODS: Pupil diameter of healthy eyes was measured with Colvard once and Pentacam without (WO) and with glare (WG), PupilX in 0, 1 and 16 lux three times each. In a second series measurements with Pentacam WO and PupilX in 0.06 and 0.12 lux were assessed. RESULTS: 36 eyes of participants aged 21-63 years were included. Mean pupil diameter was 6.05 mm with Colvard, 5.79 mm (1st series), 5.50 mm (2nd series) with Pentacam WO, 3.42 mm WG, 7.26 mm PupilX in 0, 4.67 mm 1, 3.66 mm 16, 6.82 mm in 0.06 and 6.39 mm in 0.12 lux. Measurements with Pentacam WO were significantly different to PupilX in 0, 0.06, 0.12 and 1 lux (all p<0.001), but not to Colvard (p=0.086). Pupil size measured with Pentacam WG and PupilX in 16 lux was not significantly different (p=0.647). Consecutive measurements with Pentacam WO and WG had mean standard deviation of 0.23 and 0.20 mm respectively and with PupilX 0.11 in 0, 0.24 1 and 0.20 mm in 16 lux. CONCLUSIONS: Pentacam provided good assessment of pupil size, but was not equivalent to PupilX in low lighting conditions. Repeatability was more favourable for Pentacam.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To investigate short-term (3 months follow-up) changes in visual quality following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED). METHODS: In this prospective institutional case series, 51 patients that underwent DMEK for FED were included. Assessment included the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire preoperatively, at 1 month, and 3 months after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were anterior segment parameters acquired by Scheimpflug imaging, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and endothelial cell density (ECD). RESULTS: Glare, hazy vision, blurred vision, and daily fluctuation in vision were the symptoms mostly reported preoperatively. All symptoms demonstrated a significant reduction of item scores for severity, frequency, and bothersome in the course after DMEK (P < 0.01). Glare and fluctuation in vision remained to some extent during the follow-up period (median score = 1). Preoperatively, corneal densitometry correlated moderately to weakly with severity of hazy vision (rs = 0.39; P = 0.03) and frequency (rs = 0.26; P = 0.02) as well as severity (rs = 0.27; P = 0.03) of blurry vision. CDVA and central corneal thickness (CCT) did not correlate with visual complains. CONCLUSIONS: Following DMEK for FED, patient-reported visual symptoms assessed by the QoV questionnaire represent a useful tool providing valuable information on the impact of DMEK on visual quality that cannot be directly estimated by morphological parameters and visual acuity only.
