Diagnostic validity of clinical signs associated with a large exophoria at near

Purpose. To analyze the diagnostic validity of accommodative and binocular tests in a sample of patients with a large near exophoria with moderate to severe symptoms. Methods. Two groups of patients between 19 and 35 years were recruited from a university clinic: 33 subjects with large exophoria at near vision and moderate or high visual discomfort and 33 patients with normal heterophoria and low visual discomfort. Visual discomfort was defined using the Conlon survey. A refractive exam and an exhaustive evaluation of accommodation and vergence were assessed. Diagnostic validity by means of receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR−) were assessed. This analysis was also carried out considering multiple tests as serial testing strategy. Results. ROC analysis showed the best diagnostic accuracy for receded near point of convergence (NPC) recovery (area = 0.929) and binocular accommodative facility (BAF) (area = 0.886). Using the cut-offs obtained with ROC analysis, the best diagnostic validity was obtained for the combination of NPC recovery and BAF (S  =  0.77, Sp = 1, LR+ = value tending to infinity, LR− = 0.23) and the combination of NPC break and recovery with BAF (S  =  0.73, Sp = 1, LR+ = tending to infinity, LR− = 0.27). Conclusions. NPC and BAF tests were the tests with the best diagnostic accuracy for subjects with large near exophoria and moderate to severe symptoms.

Comparative Analysis of the Visual Performance After Cataract Surgery With Implantation of a Bifocal or Trifocal Diffractive IOL

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the visual, refractive, contrast sensitivity, and aberrometric outcomes with a diffractive bifocal and trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) of the same material and haptic design. METHODS: Sixty eyes of 30 patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two groups: the bifocal group, including 30 eyes implanted with the bifocal diffractive IOL AT LISA 801 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), and the trifocal group, including eyes implanted with the trifocal diffractive IOL AT LISA tri 839 MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Analysis of visual and refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, ocular aberrations (OPD-Scan III; Nidek, Inc., Gagamori, Japan), and defocus curve were performed during a 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between groups were found in 3-month postoperative uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (P > .21). However, uncorrected, corrected, and distance-corrected near and intermediate visual acuities were significantly better in the trifocal group (P < .01). No significant differences between groups were found in postoperative spherical equivalent (P = .22). In the binocular defocus curve, the visual acuity was significantly better for defocus of -0.50 to -1.50 diopters in the trifocal group (P < .04) and -3.50 to -4.00 diopters in the bifocal group (P < .03). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in most of the postoperative corneal, internal, and ocular aberrations (P > .31), and in contrast sensitivity for most frequencies analyzed (P > .15). CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal diffractive IOLs provide significantly better intermediate vision over bifocal IOLs, with equivalent postoperative levels of visual and ocular optical quality.