Visual Discrimination Increase by Yellow Filters in Retinitis Pigmentosa

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate, by halometry and under low illumination conditions, the effects of short-wavelength light absorbance filters on visual discrimination capacity in retinitis pigmentosa patients. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective, analytic, and transversal study on 109 eyes of 57 retinitis pigmentosa patients with visual acuity better than 1.25 logMAR. Visual disturbance index (VDI) was determined using the software Halo 1.0, with and without the interposition of filters which absorb (totally or partially) short-wavelength light between 380 and 500 nm. RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in the VDI values determined using filters which absorb short-wavelength light was observed (p < 0.0001). The established VDIs in patients with VA logMAR <0.4 were 0.30 ± 0.05 (95% CI, 0.26–0.36) for the lens alone, 0.20 ± 0.04 (95% CI, 0.16–0.24) with the filter that completely absorbs wavelengths shorter than 450 nm, and 0.24 ± 0.04 (95% CI, 0.20–0.28) with the filter that partially absorbs wavelengths shorter than 450 nm, which implies a 20 to 33% visual discrimination capacity increase. In addition, a decrease of VDI in at least one eye was observed in more than 90% of patients when using a filter. CONCLUSIONS: Short-wavelength light absorbance filters increase visual discrimination capacity under low illumination conditions in retinitis pigmentosa patients. Use of such filters constitutes a suitable method to improve visual quality related to intraocular light visual disturbances under low illumination conditions in this group of patients. © 2016 American Academy of Optometry

Comparison between clinical results of two diffractive multifocal lenses with the same platform but different additions

PURPOSE: To evaluate visual results with two multifocal diffractive lenses designed with the same platform but with different additions. SETTING: Grupo Innova Ocular clinics. METHODS: A total of 50 eyes from 50 patients were included. Group 1 (n = 25) was implanted with the TECNIS® 1 ZLB +3.25 and group 2 (n = 25) with the TECNIS® 1 ZKB +2.75. Patients were assessed at 24 hours, 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. At surgical discharge, corrected (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), near visual acuity (VA) at 25, 40 and 80 cm, visual quality and the defocus curve were measured. RESULTS: Changes in sphere and spherical equivalent were statistically significant (p<0.01) in both groups at 1 week and 1 month compared to preoperative values. In group 1, UCDVA logMAR at 1 month was 0.06 ± 0.02. In group 2, UCDVA at 1 month was 0.03 ± 0.03. In near vision, the TECNIS® 1 ZLB group obtained a VA logMAR of 0.35 ± 0.02 at 25 cm, 0.13 ± 0.02 at 40 cm and 0.27 ± 0.02 at 80 cm, while in the TECNIS® 1 ZKB group, the values were 0.38  ± 0.03, 0.14 ± 0.03 and 0.23 ± 0.06, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found either when results for visual quality were compared. CONCLUSION: Both the TECNIS® 1 ZLB and TECNIS® 1 ZKB are excellent options for obtaining good distance and near vision, in addition to providing good intermediate vision, especially at distances such as those required for working with computers.