PurposeTo determine whether dizziness and falls rates change due to routine cataract surgery and to determine the influence of spectacle type and refractive factors.MethodsSelf‐reported dizziness and falls were determined in 287 patients (mean age of 76.5 ± 6.3 years, 55% females) before and after routine cataract surgery for the first (81, 28%), second (109, 38%) and both eyes (97, 34%). Dizziness was determined using the short‐form of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory. Six‐month falls rates were determined using self‐reported retrospective data.ResultsThe number of patients with dizziness reduced significantly after cataract surgery (52% vs 38%; χ2 = 19.14, p < 0.001), but the reduction in the number of patients who fell in the 6‐months post surgery was not significant (23% vs 20%; χ2 = 0.87, p = 0.35). Dizziness improved after first eye surgery (49% vs 33%, p = 0.01) and surgery on both eyes (58% vs 35%, p < 0.001), but not after second eye surgery (52% vs 45%, p = 0.68). Multivariate logistic regression analyses found significant links between post‐operative falls and change in spectacle type (increased risk if switched into multifocal spectacles). Post‐operative dizziness was associated with changes in best eye visual acuity and changes in oblique astigmatic correction.ConclusionsDizziness is significantly reduced by first (or both) eye cataract surgery and this is linked with improvements in best eye visual acuity, although changes in oblique astigmatic correction increased dizziness. The lack of improvement in falls rate may be associated with switching into multifocal spectacle wear after surgery.

Purpose We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate when refraction is stable following routine cataract surgery implanting monofocal intraocular lenses. Current advice recommends obtaining new spectacles 4–6 weeks following surgery. Due to advancements in surgical techniques, we hypothesised that refractive stability would be achieved earlier, which could have major short‐term improvements in quality of life for patients. Methods Medline, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched with key words chosen to find articles, which assessed refraction following uncomplicated cataract surgery. Citation chains and the reference lists of all included papers were searched. Unpublished literature was identified using OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.eu). The review considered studies that measured refraction at regular intervals following surgery until stability was achieved. Results The search identified 6,680 papers. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and nine papers were found to fit the criteria, of which five were included in the meta‐analysis. The quality of the papers was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non‐Randomised Studies (MINORS) instrument. Meta‐analysis of 301 patients’ data of spherical, cylindrical and spherical equivalent correction were performed using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.3) (https://revman.cochrane.org/). Refraction at 1‐week versus the gold standard of 4‐weeks showed no significant difference for sphere data (effect size and 95% confidence interval of; ES = 0.00, 95% CI: −0.17, 0.17; p = 1.00), cylindrical data (ES = +0.06; 95% CI: −0.05, 0.17; p = 0.31), and spherical equivalent (ES = −0.01; 95% CI: −0.12, 0.10; p = 0.90). Heterogeneity was non‐significant (I2 < 25%) for all refractive elements. Data were similar for 2‐ versus 4‐weeks post‐surgery. Acquired data from one study highlighted a small number of patients with very unstable cylindrical corrections at 1‐week post‐operatively. Conclusions No statistical difference was found when comparing sphere, cylindrical and spherical equivalent values at 1‐ and 4‐weeks post cataract surgery. This suggests that new glasses could be provided 1‐week after surgery. However, from a clinical perspective, a small number of patients (~7%) from an acquired dataset (N = 72) showed very unstable cylindrical corrections at 1‐week. Further work is needed to determine why this is the case and how these patients can be detected.

PurposeTo compare spectacles bought online with spectacles from optometry practices.MethodsThirty-three participants consisting of single vision spectacle wearers with either a low (N = 12, mean age 34 ± 14 years) or high prescription (N = 11, mean age 28 ± 9 years) and 10 presbyopic participants (mean age 59 ± 4 years) wearing progressive addition lenses (PALs) purchased 154 pairs of spectacles online and 154 from UK optometry practices. The spectacles were compared via participant-reported preference, acceptability, and safety; the assessment of lens, frame, and fit quality; and the accuracy of the lens prescriptions to international standard ISO 21987:2009.ResultsParticipants preferred the practice spectacles (median ranking 4th, IQR 1–6) more than online (6th, IQR 4–8; Mann-Whitney U = 7345, p < 0.001) and practice PALs (median ranking 2nd, IQR 1–4) were particularly preferred (online 6.5th, IQR 4–9, Mann-Whitney U = 455, p < 0.001). Of those deemed unacceptable and unsafe, significantly more were bought online (unacceptable: online 43/154 vs. practice 15/154, Fisher’s exact p = 0.0001; unsafe: online 14/154 vs. practice 5/154, Fisher’s exact p = 0.03).ConclusionsParticipants preferred spectacles from optometry practice rather than those bought online, despite lens quality and prescription accuracy being similar. A greater number of online spectacles were deemed unsafe or unacceptable because of poor spectacle frame fit, poor cosmetic appearance, and inaccurate optical centration. This seems particularly pertinent to PAL lenses, which are known to increase falls risk. Recommendations are made to improve both forms of spectacle provision.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the link (if any) between vision and dizziness. Methods: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched with keywords chosen to find articles which investigated the causes of dizziness and considered vision as a possible trigger. Citation chaining of all included papers was performed in addition to the hand searching of all reference lists. Unpublished literature was identified using www.opengrey.eu. The review considered studies involving adults which link, measure or attempt to improve any aspect of vision in relation to dizziness. Results: Nine thousand six hundred and eighty one possible references were found, and the abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers to determine if they should be included in the study. Thirteen papers were found which investigated whether dizziness was linked to an assessment of vision. Visual impairment measures were crude and typically self-report, or Snellen visual acuity with little or no measurement details. Five studies found an independent link between dizziness and vision, five found a weak association (typically finding a link when univariate analyses were used, but not when multivariate analyses were used), and three found no association. Studies finding a strong link were usually cross-sectional with a large study population whereas those finding a weak association had relatively small numbers of participants. Studies which did not find an association used a broad definition of dizziness that included the term light-headedness, an unreliable Rosenbaum near visual acuity chart or an unusual categorisation of visual acuity. Conclusions: This review suggests that dizziness (although likely not 'light-headedness') is linked with poor vision although further studies using more appropriate measures of vision are recommended.

To establish the optimum grading increment which ensured parity between practitioners while maximising clinical precision.Methods: Second year optometry students (n=127, 19.5 ± 1.4 years, 55% female) and qualified eye care practitioners (n=61, 40.2 ±14.8 years, 52% female) had 30 seconds to grade each of bulbar, limbal and palpebral hyperaemia of the upper lid of 4 patients imaged live with a digital slit lamp under 16x magnification, diffuse illumination, with the image projected on a screen. The patients were presented in a randomised sequence 3 times in succession, during which the graders used the Efron printed grading scale once to 0.1 precision, once to 0.5 precision and once to the nearest integer grade in a randomised order. Graders were masked to their previous responses.Results: For most grading conditions less than 20% of clinicians showed a ≤0.1 difference in grade from the mean. In contrast, more than 50% of the student graders and 40% of experienced graders showed a difference in grade from the mean within 0.5 for all conditions under measurement.Student precision in grading was better with both 0.1 and 0.5 grading precision than grading to the nearest unit, except for limbal hyperaemia where they performed more accurately with 0.5 unit precision grading. Limbal grading precision was not affected by grading step precision for experienced practitioners, but 0.1 and 0.5 grading precision were both better than 1.0 grading precision for bulbar hyperaemia and 0.1 grading precision was better than 0.5 grading precision and both were better than 1.0 grading precision for palpebral hyperaemia. Conclusion:Although narrower intervals scales maximise the ability to detect smaller clinical changes, the grading increment should not exceed one standard deviation of the discrepancy between measurements. Therefore, 0.5 grading increments are recommended for subjective anterior eye physiology grading (limbal, bulbar and palpebral redness).