No abstract

No abstract

Astigmatic changes in three series of cataract surgical procedures were compared. Two series comprised eyes having phacoemulsification and implantation of a foldable silicone lens through a 3.0 mm to 4.0 mm incision or a 5.8 mm diameter polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) lens through a 6.0 mm incision. The third series comprised eyes having a planned extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) procedure through a 10.0 mm incision and implantation of a PMMA posterior chamber lens. Surgically induced cylinder changes were compared by examining preoperative and postoperative dioptric cylinder power changes without regard to axis changes and by using vector analysis to compute induced cylinder for cases with axis changes. Both phacoemulsification series had similar mean induced cylinder levels, which were significantly less than mean induced cylinder in the ECCE group at both three and six months after surgery. Over 70% of the eyes in the two small incision phacoemulsification groups achieved an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better at three months, whereas only 28% of the ECCE group achieved that acuity. We concluded that the phacoemulsification procedure induced significantly less astigmatism and provided faster visual rehabilitation than the ECCE procedure. Furthermore, the use of small diameter PMMA IOLs inserted through small incisions minimized surgically induced cylinder in a way comparable to the use of foldable silicone implants, while maintaining good visual results with fewer postoperative complications.

We evaluated five commercially available glare testers to determine how accurately each device predicted outdoor Snellen acuity in cataract patients. Predicted outdoor Snellen acuity was compared to actual Snellen outdoor acuity for the Miller-Nadler glare tester, the brightness acuity tester (BAT), the InnoMed true vision analyzer (TVA), the VisTech VCT 8000, and the EyeCon 5. All five devices were evaluated in a single series of eyes. We ranked the five glare testers as follows based upon their ability to predict outdoor Snellen acuity within one Snellen line: (1) BAT (73%), (2) TVA (69%), (3) VisTech VCT 8000 (56%), (4) Miller-Nadler (47%), and (5) EyeCon 5 (15%). All five devices were also evaluated for their capacity to provide false negative or false positive results and for testing time per eye, test difficulty level for the patient, versatility, upgrading capacity, examining room adaptability, and price. We concluded that glare testing of cataract patients is necessary to measure visual disability and that glare testing devices vary in their ability to predict outdoor vision.