Purpose: To compare the results of MyoRing implantation for keratoconus using two different techniques for corneal pocket creation. Materials and methods:Seven eyes suffering from keratoconus were treated using Ziemer LDV for corneal pocket creation and seven eyes suffering from keratoconus were treated using DIOPTEX PocketMaker for corneal pocket creation.Results: Both groups did not show any statistically significant difference, neither in the severity of the disease nor in the results. Conclusion:Ziemer LDV and DIOPTEX PocketMaker give equal results for MyoRing implantation for keratoconus.

Purpose To investigate the effect of font choice on reading parameters by using the RADNER Reading Charts printed in two fonts (Helvetica vs. Times Roman) equalized in terms of x-height. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of 40 participants with healthy eyes (18 to 60 years of age; mean: 42.13 ± 12.28 years). Reading performance was evaluated binocularly with RADNER Reading Charts printed in either Helvetica Neue (T1) Roman sans serif (Adobe) or Times New Roman PS Roman serif (Adobe). The test distance was 40 cm. Reading charts were presented in random order. Reading acuity (RA), mean reading speed of all sentences read (MEAN-ALL RS), mean reading speed from 0.8 logRAD to 0.3 logRAD (MEAN-RS), maximum reading speed (MAX-RS), and critical print size (CPS) were compared. Results The RA values obtained for the Helvetica and Times Roman fonts (in full logarithmic units of 0.1 logRAD) did not differ between the two fonts (mean for both fonts: − 0.128 ± 0.064 logRAD; 95% CI for both: − 0.148; − 0.107 logRAD). The differences in all other reading parameters between the two fonts were small and not statistically significant. The analyses revealed narrow confidence intervals and good coefficients of reliability. Except for the CPS (r = 0.49) and RA (equal for Helvetica and Times Roman), the correlations for all parameters were high, ranging from r = 0.92 to r = 0.98. Conclusion The equivalent reading performance obtained with Helvetica and Times Roman (when equalized in x-height and layout) makes these font types interchangeable as standards for reading charts.

Purpose:The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman).Methods: Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best-corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared.Results: For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93).The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout. Conclusion:The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces. K E Y W O R D SHelvetica, legibility of font types, reading performance, reading speed, Times New Roman INTRODUC TIONRecently, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) became interested in establishing a standard for reading charts, because modern reading charts have become a well-accepted tool for the investigation of functional near vision. [1][2][3][4] With regard to the efforts of the ISO to establish such an internationally accepted standard, there are open questions that still have to be answered. One such question relates to the legibility of font types, namely is there | 1181