Eye infections caused by fungi (ocular mycoses)

Ocular mycoses are being reported with increasing frequency as a consequence of new medical practice and an increase in the number of immunosuppressed patients in the population, e.g.,, patients who are HIV positive and patients receiving radiation or chemotherapy. This article describes the ocular mycoses likely to be seen in such patients.

Investigating residual rhoticity in a non-rhotic accent

This paper reports on preliminary findings of a study conducted in the Black Country area of the west midlands of England. The small number of linguistic studies carried out in this region in the last 40 years have not found evidence of the continuing existence of variable rhoticity in the local speech variety. The Survey of English Dialects in the 1950s found low levels of rhoticity among speakers in the location closest to the Black Country, and I examine here similar findings from a detailed study of the variety, carried out between 2003-2006.

Changes of corneal biomechanics with keratoconus

PURPOSE: To perform advanced analysis of the corneal deformation response to air pressure in keratoconics compared with age- and sex-matched controls. METHODS: The ocular response analyzer was used to measure the air pressure-corneal deformation relationship of 37 patients with keratoconus and 37 age (mean 36 ± 10 years)- and sex-matched controls with healthy corneas. Four repeat air pressure-corneal deformation profiles were averaged, and 42 separate parameters relating to each element of the profiles were extracted. Corneal topography and pachymetry were performed with the Orbscan II. The severity of the keratoconus was graded based on a single metric derived from anterior corneal curvatures, difference in astigmatism in each meridian, anterior best-fit sphere, and posterior best-fit sphere. RESULTS: Most of the biomechanical characteristics of keratoconic eyes were significantly different from normal eyes (P <0.001), especially during the initial corneal applanation. With increasing keratoconus severity, the cornea was thinner (r = -0.407, P <0.001), the speed of corneal concave deformation past applanation was quicker (dive; r = -0.314, P = 0.01), and the tear film index was lower (r = -0.319, P = 0.01). The variance in keratoconus severity could be accounted for by the corneal curvature and central corneal thickness (r = 0.80) with biomechanical characteristics contributing an additional 4% (total r = 0.84). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.919 ± 0.025 for keratometry alone, 0.965 ± 0.014 with the addition of pachymetry, and 0.972 ± 0.012 combined with ocular response analyzer biomechanical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of the air pressure-corneal deformation profile are more affected by keratoconus than the traditionally extracted corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factors. These biomechanical metrics slightly improved the detection and severity prediction of keratoconus above traditional keratometric and pachymetric assessment of corneal shape.

Effect of uncorrected astigmatism on vision

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of uncorrected astigmatism in older adults. SETTING: University Vision Clinic METHOD: Twenty-one healthy presbyopes, aged 58.9±2.8 years, had astigmatism of 0.0 to -4.0 x 90?DC and -3.0DC of cylinder at 90?, 180? and 45? induced with spectacle lenses, with the mean spherical equivalent compensated to plano, in random order. Visual acuity was assessed binocularly using a computerised test chart at 95%, 50% and 10% contrast. Near acuity and reading speed were measured using standardised reading texts. Light scatter was quantified with the cQuant and driving reaction times with a computer simulator. Finally visual clarity of a mobile phone and computer screen was subjectively rated. RESULTS: Distance visual acuity decreased with increasing uncorrected astigmatic power (F=174.50, p<0.001) and was reduced at lower contrasts (F=170.77, p<0.001). Near visual acuity and reading speed also decreased with increasing uncorrected astigmatism power (p<0.001). Light scatter was not significantly affected by uncorrected astigmatism (p>0.05), but the reliability and variability of measurements decreased with increasing uncorrected astigmatic power (p<0.05). Driving simulator performance was also unaffected by uncorrected astigmatism (p>0.05), but subjective rating of clarity decreased with increasing uncorrected astigmatic power (p<0.001). Uncorrected astigmatism at 45? or 180? orientation resulted in a worse distance and near visual acuity, and subjective rated clarity than 90? orientation (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Uncorrected astigmatism, even as low as 1.0DC, causes a significant burden on a patient’s vision. If left uncorrected, this could impact significantly on their independence, quality of life and wellbeing.