La plus que lente; valse pour piano.

Mode of access: Internet.

Presas e escravatura : memoria apresentada no concurso para lente de 8a. [i.e. oitava] cadeira do curso da Escola Naval /

In portfolio.

Accommodating intraocular lenses:a review of design concepts, usage and assessment methods

The correction of presbyopia and restoration of true accommodative function to the ageing eye is the focus of much ongoing research and clinical work. A range of accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs) implanted during cataract surgery has been developed and they are designed to change either their position or shape in response to ciliary muscle contraction to generate an increase in dioptric power. Two main design concepts exist. First, axial shift concepts rely on anterior axial movement of one or two optics creating accommodative ability. Second, curvature change designs are designed to provide significant amplitudes of accommodation with little physical displacement. Single-optic devices have been used most widely, although the true accommodative ability provided by forward shift of the optic appears limited and recent findings indicate that alternative factors such as flexing of the optic to alter ocular aberrations may be responsible for the enhanced near vision reported in published studies. Techniques for analysing the performance of AIOLs have not been standardised and clinical studies have reported findings using a wide range of both subjective and objective methods, making it difficult to gauge the success of these implants. There is a need for longitudinal studies using objective methods to assess long-term performance of AIOLs and to determine if true accommodation is restored by the designs available. While dual-optic and curvature change IOLs are designed to provide greater amplitudes of accommodation than is possible with single-optic devices, several of these implants are in the early stages of development and require significant further work before human use is possible. A number of challenges remain and must be addressed before the ultimate goal of restoring youthful levels of accommodation to the presbyopic eye can be achieved.

Development of a questionnaire to assess the relative subjective benefits of presbyopia correction

Purpose To develop a standardized questionnaire of near visual function and satisfaction to complement visual function evaluations of presbyopic corrections. Setting Eye Clinic, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Midland Eye Institute and Solihull Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom. Design Questionnaire development. Methods A preliminary 26-item questionnaire of previously used near visual function items was completed by patients with monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), multifocal IOLs, accommodating IOLs, multifocal contact lenses, or varifocal spectacles. Rasch analysis was used for item reduction, after which internal and test–retest reliabilities were determined. Construct validity was determined by correlating the resulting Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) scores with near visual acuity and critical print size (CPS), which was measured using the Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test chart. Discrimination ability was assessed through receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results One hundred fifty patients completed the questionnaire. Item reduction resulted in a 10-item NAVQ with excellent separation (2.92), internal consistency (Cronbach a = 0.95), and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72). Correlations of questionnaire scores with near visual acuity (r = 0.32) and CPS (r = 0.27) provided evidence of validity, and discrimination ability was excellent (area under ROC curve = 0.91). Conclusion Results show the NAVQ is a reliable, valid instrument that can be incorporated into the evaluation of presbyopic corrections.

Comparison of near visual acuity and reading metrics in presbyopia correction

PURPOSE: To provide a consistent standard for the evaluation of different types of presbyopic correction. SETTING: Eye Clinic, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. METHODS: Presbyopic corrections examined were accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs), simultaneous multifocal and monovision contact lenses, and varifocal spectacles. Binocular near visual acuity measured with different optotypes (uppercase letters, lowercase letters, and words) and reading metrics assessed with the Minnesota Near Reading chart (reading acuity, critical print size [CPS], CPS reading speed) were intercorrelated (Pearson product moment correlations) and assessed for concordance (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) and agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) for indication of clinical usefulness. RESULTS: Nineteen accommodating IOL cases, 40 simultaneous contact lens cases, and 38 varifocal spectacle cases were evaluated. Other than CPS reading speed, all near visual acuity and reading metrics correlated well with each other (r>0.70, P<.001). Near visual acuity measured with uppercase letters was highly concordant (ICC, 0.78) and in close agreement with lowercase letters (+/- 0.17 logMAR). Near word acuity agreed well with reading acuity (+/- 0.16 logMAR), which in turn agreed well with near visual acuity measured with uppercase letters 0.16 logMAR). Concordance (ICC, 0.18 to 0.46) and agreement (+/- 0.24 to 0.30 logMAR) of CPS with the other near metrics was moderate. CONCLUSION: Measurement of near visual ability in presbyopia should be standardized to include assessment of near visual acuity with logMAR uppercase-letter optotypes, smallest logMAR print size that maintains maximum reading speed (CPS), and reading speed. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35:1401-1409 (C) 2009 ASCRS and ESCRS

Objective analysis of toric intraocular lens rotation and centration

PURPOSE: To assess the repeatability of an objective image analysis technique to determine intraocular lens (IOL) rotation and centration. SETTING: Six ophthalmology clinics across Europe. METHODS: One-hundred seven patients implanted with Akreos AO aspheric IOLs with orientation marks were imaged. Image quality was rated by a masked observer. The axis of rotation was determined from a line bisecting the IOL orientation marks. This was normalized for rotation of the eye between visits using the axis bisecting 2 consistent conjunctival vessels or iris features. The center of ovals overlaid to circumscribe the IOL optic edge and the pupil or limbus were compared to determine IOL centration. Intrasession repeatability was assessed in 40 eyes and the variability of repeated analysis examined. RESULTS: Intrasession rotational stability of the IOL was ±0.79 degrees (SD) and centration was ±0.10 mm horizontally and ±0.10 mm vertically. Repeated analysis variability of the same image was ±0.70 degrees for rotation and ±0.20 mm horizontally and ±0.31 mm vertically for centration. Eye rotation (absolute) between visits was 2.23 ± 1.84 degrees (10%>5 degrees rotation) using one set of consistent conjunctival vessels or iris features and 2.03 ± 1.66 degrees (7%>5 degrees rotation) using the average of 2 sets (P =.13). Poorer image quality resulted in larger apparent absolute IOL rotation (r =-0.45,P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Objective analysis of digital retroillumination images allows sensitive assessment of IOL rotation and centration stability. Eye rotation between images can lead to significant errors if not taken into account. Image quality is important to analysis accuracy.

Development of a near activity visual questionnaire to assess accommodating intraocular lenses

Purpose: To develop a questionnaire that subjectively assesses near visual function in patients with 'accommodating' intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: A literature search of existing vision-related quality-of-life instruments identified all questions relating to near visual tasks. Questions were combined if repeated in multiple instruments. Further relevant questions were added and item interpretation confirmed through multidisciplinary consultation and focus groups. A preliminary 19-item questionnaire was presented to 22 subjects at their 4-week visit post first eye phacoemulsification with 'accommodative' IOL implantation, and again 6 and 12 weeks post-operatively. Rasch Analysis, Frequency of Endorsement, and tests of normality (skew and kurtosis) were used to reduce the instrument. Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC) were determined for the final questionnaire. Construct validity was obtained by Pearson's product moment correlation (PPMC) of questionnaire scores to reading acuity (RA) and to Critical Print Size (CPS) reading speed. Criterion validity was obtained by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and dimensionality of the questionnaire was assessed by factor analysis. Results: Rasch Analysis eliminated nine items due to poor fit statistics. The final items have good separation (2.55), internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.97) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.66). PPMC of questionnaire scores with RA was 0.33, and with CPS reading speed was 0.08. Area under the ROC curve was 0.88 and Factor Analysis revealed one principal factor. Conclusion: The pilot data indicates the questionnaire to be internally consistent, reliable and a valid instrument that could be useful for assessing near visual function in patients with 'accommodating' IOLS. The questionnaire will now be expanded to include other types of presbyopic correction. © 2007 British Contact Lens Association.

Theoretical evaluation of the cataract extraction-refraction-implantation techniques for intraocular lens power calculation

PURPOSE: To evaluate theoretically three previously published formulae that use intra-operative aphakic refractive error to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power, not necessitating pre-operative biometry. The formulae are as follows: IOL power (D) = Aphakic refraction x 2.01 [Ianchulev et al., J. Cataract Refract. Surg.31 (2005) 1530]; IOL power (D) = Aphakic refraction x 1.75 [Mackool et al., J. Cataract Refract. Surg.32 (2006) 435]; IOL power (D) = 0.07x(2) + 1.27x + 1.22, where x = aphakic refraction [Leccisotti, Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol.246 (2008) 729]. METHODS: Gaussian first order calculations were used to determine the relationship between intra-operative aphakic refractive error and the IOL power required for emmetropia in a series of schematic eyes incorporating varying corneal powers, pre-operative crystalline lens powers, axial lengths and post-operative IOL positions. The three previously published formulae, based on empirical data, were then compared in terms of IOL power errors that arose in the same schematic eye variants. RESULTS: An inverse relationship exists between theoretical ratio and axial length. Corneal power and initial lens power have little effect on calculated ratios, whilst final IOL position has a significant impact. None of the three empirically derived formulae are universally accurate but each is able to predict IOL power precisely in certain theoretical scenarios. The formulae derived by Ianchulev et al. and Leccisotti are most accurate for posterior IOL positions, whereas the Mackool et al. formula is most reliable when the IOL is located more anteriorly. CONCLUSION: Final IOL position was found to be the chief determinant of IOL power errors. Although the A-constants of IOLs are known and may be accurate, a variety of factors can still influence the final IOL position and lead to undesirable refractive errors. Optimum results using these novel formulae would be achieved in myopic eyes.

Mechanism of action of the tetraflex accommodative intraocular lens

PURPOSE:To investigate the mechanism of action of the Tetraflex (Lenstec Kellen KH-3500) accommodative intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS:Thirteen eyes of eight patients implanted with the Tetraflex accommodating IOL for at least 2 years underwent assessment of their objective amplitude-of-accommodation by autorefraction, anterior chamber depth and pupil size with optical coherence tomography, and IOL flexure with aberrometry, each viewing a target at 0.0 to 4.00 diopters of accommodative demand. RESULTS:Pupil size decreased by 0.62+/-0.41 mm on increasing accommodative demand, but the Tetraflex IOL was relatively fixed in position within the eye. The ocular aberrations of the eye changed with increased accommodative demand, but not in a consistent manner among individuals. Those aberrations that appeared to be most affected were defocus, vertical primary and secondary astigmatism, vertical coma, horizontal and vertical primary and secondary trefoil, and spherical aberration. CONCLUSIONS:Some of the reported near vision benefits of the Tetraflex accommodating IOL appear to be due to changes in the optical aberrations because of the flexure of the IOL on accommodative effort rather than forward movement within the capsular bag.

Intraocular lenses in the 21st century

Editorial

Clinical evaluation of the Softec HD aberration-free aspheric intraocular lens

Purpose: To compare distance and near visual performance with a zero-aberration aspheric intraocular lens (IOL) (Softec HD, Lenstec, Inc. FL, USA) with that of an otherwise identical, but spherical IOL (Softec 1). Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Solihull Hospital, West Midlands, United Kingdom. Methods: This prospective study comprised 37 patients with a Softec 1 spherical IOL implanted in one eye, who underwent phacoemulsification and received the Softec HD aspheric IOL in the fellow eye. One month post-operatively, unaided distance and near vision, residual refraction, best spectacle corrected distance and near visual acuity, reading speed, pseudoaccommodation and photopic contrast sensitivity were recorded. Wavefront analysis enabled comparison of higher order aberrations between the IOLs. Results: Prior to surgery, the Softec 1 and Softec HD eyes were not significantly different. Post-operatively, unaided vision, best spectacle corrected visual acuity and residual refraction were not significantly different between the eyes, nor were there significant differences observed between the measured wavefront aberrations. Once implanted, the range of focus was significantly better in the Softec HD IOL eye than the Softec 1 IOL eye and, although reading speed was equivalent to the Softec 1 eye, the print size at which this could be achieved was significantly smaller. Conclusions: Depth of field was significantly improved with the aspheric IOL compared with the spherical IOL, without any compromise in distance visual performance between the two IOLs.