Swept-source optical biometry showed high repeatability performance for all biometric parameters in healthy eyes, where the correlation between the spherical equivalent and AL showed the strongest value.

PurposeTo evaluate the long-term predictability, stability, safety, and efficacy of the V4c Visian implantable collamer lens (ICL) with central hole to correct myopia.Patients and methodsOne hundred and eighty-four eyes of 92 patients were evaluated during 3 years after implantation of the V4c ICL. The refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity, IOP, endothelial cell count, vault, and adverse effects were evaluated every 12 months during the whole follow-up.ResultsThe mean spherical equivalent dropped from -8.30±2.98 D preoperatively to −0.37±0.47 D at 36 months post-surgery, with 91.8% eyes being within ±1.00 D of emmetropia. With respect to the astigmatic components J0 and J45, 98.4% and 99.5% of eyes, respectively, were within ±0.50 D of the desired refraction. At 36 months, 78.8% of eyes had no change in the Snellen lines of best-corrected distance visual acuity, while 8.7% gained one line and 6.5% gained two or more lines; mean safety and efficacy indexes were 1.03 and 0.90, respectively. Mean endothelial cell count was 2,742±340 cells/mm2 before and 2,663±366 cells/mm2 at 36 months post-surgery. Mean IOP reduced from 13.7±1.9 mmHg preoperatively to 12.8±1.7 mmHg at 36 months post-surgery. Mean vault varied from 409±196 µm at 12 months to 349±165 µm at 36 months.ConclusionThe visual and refractive outcomes were very good and highly stable throughout the follow-up period, indicating that this ICL model may be predictable, stable, safe, and effective to correct myopia in the long term.

The results obtained in the present study suggest that both designs might enlarge the depth of focus. Whereas, the Mini WELL Ready showed better optical quality than the TECNIS Symfony at far vision with 4.5 mm aperture, and larger defocus tolerance than the diffractive lens at near-distance vision.

SIGNIFICANCE Digital display use has been accepted as a contributing factor to dry eye disease. Nowadays, plenty of new models of digital displays have been developed, and the differences in their nature and the ways in which they are set and used may contribute to differences in the eye-related problems they cause. PURPOSE This study aimed to analyze the differences in ocular surface, tear film, and visual fatigue parameters after reading on different digital displays, with and without initial instillation of artificial tears. METHODS Thirty-one healthy individuals ranging in age from 20 to 26 years (mean ± standard deviation, 21.26 ± 1.73 years) were included in this prospective clinical study. Subjects' ocular surface, tear film, and visual fatigue parameters were assessed after reading for 15 minutes on a laptop computer, tablet, e-reader, and smartphone with matching characteristics and a baseline measurement. Measurements were taken with and without the instillation of artificial tears before the reading tasks and included the Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire, the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire, tear meniscus height, the Schirmer I test, noninvasive keratograph break-up time, osmolarity, bulbar redness, and pupil size. RESULTS Statistically significant differences in the Ocular Surface Disease Index, Computer Vision the Syndrome Questionnaire, tear meniscus height, the Schirmer I test, noninvasive keratograph break-up time, osmolarity, and bulbar redness were obtained when comparing the displays (P < .05). Best results were obtained with the smartphone and the e-reader. Conversely, the computer produced the highest disturbance on the ocular surface and tear film. Finally, the instillation of artificial tears revealed no statistical improvement of ocular surface or tear film parameters for the same device (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS Taking into account the clinical tests for dry eye diagnosis, the smartphone may be considered as the least disturbing display, producing lower dry eye signs and symptoms in comparison with other devices.

No abstract