Exploring the optimum step size for defocus curves

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of reducing the number of visual acuity measurements made in a defocus curve on the quality of data quantified. Setting: Midland Eye, Solihull, United Kingdom. Design: Evaluation of a technique. Methods: Defocus curves were constructed by measuring visual acuity on a distance logMAR letter chart, randomizing the test letters between lens presentations. The lens powers evaluated ranged between +1.50 diopters (D) and -5.00 D in 0.50 D steps, which were also presented in a randomized order. Defocus curves were measured binocularly with the Tecnis diffractive, Rezoom refractive, Lentis rotationally asymmetric segmented (+3.00 D addition [add]), and Finevision trifocal multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) implanted bilaterally, and also for the diffractive IOL and refractive or rotationally asymmetric segmented (+3.00 D and +1.50 D adds) multifocal IOLs implanted contralaterally. Relative and absolute range of clear-focus metrics and area metrics were calculated for curves fitted using 0.50 D, 1.00 D, and 1.50 D steps and a near add-specific profile (ie, distance, half the near add, and the full near-add powers). Results: A significant difference in simulated results was found in at least 1 of the relative or absolute range of clear-focus or area metrics for each of the multifocal designs examined when the defocus-curve step size was increased (P<.05). Conclusion: Faster methods of capturing defocus curves from multifocal IOL designs appear to distort the metric results and are therefore not valid. Financial Disclosure: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. © 2013 ASCRS and ESCRS.

What is the optimum artificial treament for dry eye?

Dry eye disease is a common clinical condition whose aetiology and management challenges clinicians and researchers alike. Practitioners have a number of dry eye tests available to clinically assess dry eye disease, in order to treat their patients effectively and successfully. This thesis set out to determine the most relevant and successful key tests for dry eye disease diagnosis/ management. There has been very little research on determining the most effective treatment options for these patients; therefore a randomised controlled study was conducted in order to see how different artificial treatments perform compared to each other, whether the preferred treatment could have been predicted from their ocular clinical assessment, and if the preferred treatment subjectively related to the greatest improvement in ocular physiology and tear film stability. This research has found: 1. From the plethora of ocular the tear tests available to utilise in clinical practice, the tear stability tests as measured by the non-invasive tear break (NITBUT) up time and invasive tear break up time (NaFL TBUT) are strongly correlated. The tear volume tests are also related as measured by the phenol red thread (PRT) and tear meniscus height (TMH). Lid Parallel Conjunctival Folds (LIPCOF) and conjunctival staining are significantly correlated to one another. Symptomology and osmolarity were also found to be important tests in order to assess for dry eye. 2. Artificial tear supplements do work for ocular comfort, as well as the ocular surface as observed by conjunctival staining and the reduction LIPCOF. There is no strong evidence of one type of artificial tear supplement being more effective than others, and the data suggest that these improvements are more due to the time than the specific drops. 3. When trying to predict patient preference for artificial tears from baseline measurements, the individual category of artificial tear supplements appeared to have an improvement in at least 1 tear metric. Undoubtedly, from the study the patients preferred artificial tear supplements’ were rated much higher than the other three drops used in the study and their subjective responses were statistically significant than the signs. 4. Patients are also willing to pay for a community dry eye service in their area of £17. In conclusion, the dry eye tests conducted in the study correlate with one another and with the symptoms reported by the patient. Artificial tears do make a difference objectively as well as subjectively. There is no optimum artificial treatment for dry eye, however regular consistent use of artificial eye drops will improve the ocular surface.

Determining which factors influence the optimum multifocal contact lens correction for presbyopia

Presbyopia is a consequence of ageing and is therefore increasing inprevalence due to an increase in the ageing population. Of the many methods available to manage presbyopia, the use of contact lenses is indeed a tried and tested reversible option for those wishing to be spectacle free. Contact lens options to correct presbyopia include multifocal contact lenses and monovision.Several options have been available for many years with available guides to help choose multifocal contact lenses. However there is no comprehensive way to help the practitioner selecting the best option for an individual. An examination of the simplest way of predicting the most suitable multifocal lens for a patient will only enhance and add to the current evidence available. The purpose of the study was to determine the current use of presbyopic correction modalities in an optometric practice population in the UK and to evaluate and compare the optical performance of four silicone hydrogel soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal performance with contact lens monovision. The presbyopic practice cohort principal forms of refractive correction were distance spectacles (with near and intermediate vision providedby a variety of other forms of correction), varifocal spectacles and unaided distance with reading spectacles, with few patients wearing contact lenses as their primary correction modality. The results of the multifocal contact lens randomised controlled trial showed that there were only minor differences in corneal physiology between the lens options. Visual acuity differences were observed for distance targets, but only for low contrast letters and under mesopic lighting conditions. At closer distances between 20cm and 67cm, the defocus curves demonstrated that there were significant differences in acuity between lens designs (p < 0.001) and there was an interaction between the lens design and the level of defocus (p < 0.001). None of the lenses showed a clear near addition, perhaps due to their more aspheric rather than zoned design. As expected, stereoacuity was reduced with monovision compared with the multifocal contact lens designs, although there were some differences between the multifocal lens designs (p < 0.05). Reading speed did not differ between lens designs (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), whereas there was a significant difference in critical print size (F = 7.543, p < 0.001). Glare was quantified with a novel halometer and halo size was found to significantly differ between lenses(F = 4.101, p = 0.004). The rating of iPhone image clarity was significantly different between presbyopic corrections (p = 0.002) as was the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating of near performance (F = 3.730, p = 0.007).The pupil size did not alter with contact lens design (F = 1.614, p = 0.175), but was larger in the dominant eye (F = 5.489, p = 0.025). Pupil decentration relative to the optical axis did not alter with contact lens design (F = 0.777, p =0.542), but was also greater in the dominant eye (F = 9.917, p = 0.003). It was interesting to note that there was no difference in spherical aberrations induced between the contact lens designs (p > 0.05), with eye dominance (p > 0.05) oroptical component (ocular, corneal or internal: p > 0.05). In terms of subjective patient lens preference, 10 patients preferred monovision,12 Biofinity multifocal lens, 7 Purevision 2 for Presbyopia, 4 AirOptix multifocal and 2 Oasys multifocal contact lenses. However, there were no differences in demographic factors relating to lifestyle or personality, or physiological characteristics such as pupil size or ocular aberrations as measured at baseline,which would allow a practitioner to identify which lens modality the patient would prefer. In terms of the performance of patients with their preferred lens, it emerged that Biofinity multifocal lens preferring patients had a better high contrast acuity under photopic conditions, maintained their reading speed at smaller print sizes and subjectively rated iPhone clarity as better with this lens compared with the other lens designs trialled. Patients who preferred monovision had a lower acuity across a range of distances and a larger area of glare than those patients preferring other lens designs that was unexplained by the clinical metrics measured. However, it seemed that a complex interaction of aberrations may drive lens preference. New clinical tests or more diverse lens designs which may allow practitioners to prescribe patients the presbyopic contact lens option that will work best for them first time remains a hope for the future.