Effect of target distance on accommodative amplitude measured using the minus lens technique

Background: The aim was to investigate the effect on the measured amplitude of accommodation and repeatability of using the minus lens technique with the target at distance or near. Methods: Forty-three students (average age: 21.17 ± 1.50 years, 35 female) had their amplitude of accommodation measured with minus lenses on top of their distance correction in a trial frame with the target at far (6.0m) or near (0.4m). The minus lens power was gradually added with steps of 0.25D. Measurements were taken on two occasions at each distance, which were separated by a time interval of at least 24 hours. Results: The measured amplitude at six metres was significantly lower than that with the target at 40cm, by 1.56 ± 1.17D (p < 0.001) and this varied between individuals (r = 0.716, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.439). With either target distance, repeated measurement was highly correlated (r > 0.9) but the agreement was better at 6.0m (±0.74D) than at 40cm (± 0.92D). Conclusion: The measurements of the amplitude of accommodation with the minus lens technique using targets at far or near are not comparable and the difference between the target distances may provide clinically relevant information. © 2013 Optometrists Association Australia.

Editorial

Readers may have noted that a short but very important announcement was made in the last issue of CLAE, at the top of the contents page. CLAE has been accepted by Thomson Reuters for abstracting and indexing in its SciSearch, Journal Citation Reports, and Current Contents services. This will ensure a greater visibility to the international research community. In addition, in June 2012 CLAE will receive its very first official Impact Factor – a measure of journal influence of importance to authors and readers alike. The impact factor value has not yet been decided but internal estimates by Elsevier estimate it will be around 1, and it will be applied to all CLAE issue back to January 2009 (volume 32). I would guess readers at this stage would have one of two responses – either ‘that's good news’ or perhaps ‘what's an impact factor?’ If you are in the latter camp then allow me to try and explain. Basically the impact factor or citation index of a journal is based on how many times in the previous year papers published in that journal in the previous two years were cited by authors publishing in other journals. So the 2012 impact factor for CLAE is calculated on how many times in 2011 papers that were published in CLAE in 2010 and 2009 were cited in other journals in 2011, divided by the number of papers published in CLAE 2010 and 2009. Essentially authors will try and get their work published in journals with a higher impact factor as it is thought that the paper will be cited more by other authors or the paper will have higher visibility in the arena. For universities having its published output in higher journals is one of the markers used to judge esteem. For individual authors publishing in journals with a higher impact factor or the number of times one of their papers is published is something that they are likely to add to their CVs or demonstrate the importance of their work. Journals with higher impact factors tend to be more review journals or journals with a wider spectrum so for a relatively small journal with a specialised field like CLAE it is great to be listed with a citation index. The awarding of a citation index crowns many changes that CLAE has undergone since the current Editor took the reins in 2005. CLAE has increased from four issues (in 2004) to six issues per year with at least one review article per issue and one article with continuing education per issue. The rejection rate has gone up significantly meaning that only best papers are published (currently it stands at 37%). CLAE has been Medline/Pubmed indexed for a few years now which is also a very important factor in improving visibility of the journal. The submission and reviewing process for CLAE in now entirely online and finally the editorial board has changed from being merely a list of keynote people to being an active group of keynote people who are enthusiastically involved with the journal. From the editorial board one person is appointed as a Reviews Editor plus we have two additional editors who work as Regional Editors. As ever, on behalf of CLAE I would like to thank the BCLA Council for their continued support (especially Vivien Freeman) and Elsevier for their continuing guidance (in particular Andrew Miller and Rosie Davey) and the excellent Editorial Board (Christopher Snyder, Pauline Cho, Eric Papas, Jan Bergmanson, Roger Buckley, Patrick Caroline, Dwight Cavanagh, Robin Chalmers, Michael Doughty, Nathan Efron, Michel Guillon, Nizar Hirji, Meng Lin, Florence Malet, Philip Morgan, Deborah Sweeney, Brian Tighe, Eef van Der Worp, Barry Weissman, Mark Willcox, James Wolffsohn and Craig Woods). And finally, a big thanks to the authors and reviewers who work tirelessly putting manuscripts together for publication in CLAE. Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacologic treatments for acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

Objective - To investigate whether artificial tears and cold compress alone or in combination provide a treatment benefit and whether they were as effective as or could enhance topical antiallergic medication. Design - Randomized, masked clinical trial. Participants - Eighteen subjects (mean age, 29.5±11.0 years) allergic to grass pollen. Intervention - Controlled exposure to grass pollen using an environmental chamber to stimulate an ocular allergic reaction followed by application of artificial tears (ATs), 5 minutes of cold compress (CC), ATs combined with CC, or no treatment applied at each separate visit in random order. A subset of 11 subjects also had epinastine hydrochloride (EH) applied alone and combined with CC in random order or instillation of a volume-matched saline control. Main Outcome Measures - Bulbar conjunctival hyperemia, ocular surface temperature, and ocular symptoms repeated before and every 10 minutes after treatment for 1 hour. Results - Bulbar conjunctival hyperemia and ocular symptoms decreased and temperature recovered to baseline faster with nonpharmaceutical treatments compared with no treatment (P??0.05). At all measurement intervals, symptoms were reduced for both EH and EH combined with CC than CC or ATs alone or in combination (P?

Validity and repeatability of the Aladdin ocular biometer

Aim To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of biometry undertaken with the Aladdin (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) in comparison with the current gold standard device, the IOLMaster 500 (Zeiss, Jena, Germany). Setting University Eye Clinic, Birmingham, UK and Refractive Surgery Centre, Kiel, Germany. Methods The right eye of 75 patients with cataracts and 22 healthy participants were assessed using the two devices. Measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and keratometry (K) were undertaken with the Aladdin and IOLMaster 500 in random order by an experienced practitioner. A second practitioner then obtained measurements for each participant using the Aladdin biometer in order to assess interobserver variability. Results No statistically significant differences ( p≥0.05) between the two biometers were found for average difference (AL)±95% CI=0.01±0.06 mm), ACD (0.00 ±0.11 mm) or mean K values (0.08±0.51 D). Furthermore, interobserver variability was very good for each parameter (weighted κ≥0.85). One patient's IOL powers could not be calculated with either biometer measurements, whereas a further three could not be analysed by the IOLMaster 500. The IOL power calculated from the valid measurements was not statistically significantly different between the biometers (p=0.842), with 91% of predictions within±0.25 D. Conclusions The Aladdin is a quick, easy-to-use biometer that produces valid and reproducible results that are comparable with those obtained with the IOLMaster 500.

Effect of a commercially available warm compress on eyelid temperature and tear film in healthy eyes

Purpose: To evaluate eyelid temperature change and short-term effects on tear film stability and lipid layer thickness in healthy patients using a commercially available warm compress (MGDRx EyeBag) for ophthalmic use. Methods: Eyelid temperature, noninvasive tear film breakup time (NITBUT), and tear film lipid layer thickness (TFLLT) of 22 healthy subjects were measured at baseline, immediately after, and 10 minutes after application of a heated eyebag for 5 minutes to one eye selected at random. A nonheated eyebag was applied to the contralateral eye as a control. Results: Eyelid temperatures, NITBUT, and TFLLT increased significantly from baseline in test eyes immediately after removal of the heated eyebag compared with those in control eyes (maximum temperature change, 2.3 +/- 1.2[degrees]C vs. 0.3 +/- 0.5[degrees]C, F = 20.533, p < 0.001; NITBUT change, 4.0 +/- 2.3 seconds vs. 0.4 +/- 1.7 seconds, p < 0.001; TFLLT change, 2.0 +/- 0.9 grades vs. 0.1 +/- 0.4 grades, Z = -4.035, p < 0.001). After 10 minutes, measurements remained significantly higher than those in controls (maximum temperature change, 1.0 +/- 0.7[degrees]C vs. 0.1 +/- 0.3[degrees]C, F = 14.247, p < 0.001; NITBUT change, 3.6 +/- 2.1 seconds vs. 0.1 +/- 1.9 seconds, p < 0.001; TFLLT change, 1.5 +/- 0.9 vs. 0.2 +/- 0.5 grades, Z = -3.835, p < 0.001). No adverse events occurred during the study. Conclusions: The MGDRx EyeBag is a simple device for heating the eyelids, resulting in increased NITBUT and TFLLT in subjects without meibomian gland dysfunction that seem to be clinically significant. Future studies are required to determine clinical efficacy and evaluate safety after long-term therapy in meibomian gland dysfunction patients. © 2013 American Academy of Optometry

Towards standardization of UV eye protection:what can be learned from photodermatology?

While knowledge about standardization of skin protection against ultraviolet radiation (UVR) has progressed over the past few decades, there is no uniform and generally accepted standardized measurement for UV eye protection. The literature provides solid evidence that UV can induce considerable damage to structures of the eye. As well as damaging the eyelids and periorbital skin, chronic UV exposure may also affect the conjunctiva and lens. Clinically, this damage can manifest as skin cancer and premature skin ageing as well as the development of pterygia and premature cortical cataracts. Modern eye protection, used daily, offers the opportunity to prevent these adverse sequelae of lifelong UV exposure. A standardized, reliable and comprehensive label for consumers and professionals is currently lacking. In this review we (i) summarize the existing literature about UV radiation-induced damage to the eye and surrounding skin; (ii) review the recent technological advances in UV protection by means of lenses; (iii) review the definition of the Eye-Sun Protection Factor (E-SPF®), which describes the intrinsic UV protection properties of lenses and lens coating materials based on their capacity to absorb or reflect UV radiation; and (iv) propose a strategy for establishing the biological relevance of the E-SPF. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Evaluating the effect of splitting cylindrical power on improving patient tolerance to toric lens misalignment

Purpose: Evaluating the impact of splitting toric power on patient tolerance to misorientation such as with intraocular lens rotation. Setting: University vision clinic. Methods: Healthy, non astigmats had +1.50D astigmatism induced with spectacle lenses at 90°, 135°, 180° and +3.00D at 90°. Two correcting cylindrical lenses of the opposite sign and half the power each were subsequently added to the trial frame misaligned by 0°, 5° or 10° in a random order and misorientated from the initial axis in a clockwise direction by up to 15° in 5° steps. A second group of adapted astigmats with between 1.00 and 3.00DC had their astigmatism corrected with two toric spectacle lenses of half the power separated by 0°, 5° or 10° and misorientated from the initial axis in both directions by up to 15° in 5° steps. Distance, high contrast visual acuity was measured using a computerised test chart at each lens misalignment and misorientation. Results: Misorientation of the split toric lenses caused a statistically significant drop in visual acuity (F= 70.341; p< 0.001). Comparatively better acuities were observed around 180°, as anticipated (F= 3.775; p= 0.035). Misaligning the split toric power produced no benefit in visual acuity retention with axis misorientation when subjects had astigmatism induced with a low (F= 2.190, p= 0.129) or high cylinder (F= 0.491, p= 0.617) or in the adapted astigmats (F= 0.120, p= 0.887). Conclusion: Misalignment of toric lens power split across the front and back lens surfaces had no beneficial effect on distance visual acuity, but also no negative effect. © 2013 British Contact Lens Association.

Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens

Aim: To evaluate the performance of an aspheric diffractive multifocal acrylic intraocular lens (IOL), ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis. Setting: Five sites across Europe. Methods: Fifty-two patients with cataracts (average age 68.5±10.5 years, 35 female) were bilaterally implanted with the aspheric diffractive multifocal IOL after completing a questionnaire regarding their optical visual symptoms, use of visual correction and their visual satisfaction. The questionnaire was completed again 4-6 months after surgery along with measures of uncorrected and best-corrected distance and near visual acuity, under photopic and mesopic lighting, reading ability, defocus curve testing and ocular examination for adverse events. Results: The residual refractive error was 0.01±0.47D with 56% of eyes within ±0.25D and 97% within ±1.0D. Uncorrected visual acuity was 0.02±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.15±0.30 logMAR at near, only reducing to 0.07±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.21±0.25logMAR at near in mesopic conditions.The defocus curve showed a near addition between 2.5-3.0 D allowing a reading acuity of 0.08±0.13 logMAR, with a range of clear vision <0.3 logMAR of ∼4.0 D. The average reading speed was 121.4±30.8 words per minute. Spectacle independence was 100% for distance and 88% for near, with high levels of satisfaction reported. Overall rating of vision without glasses could be explained (r=0.760) by preoperative best-corrected distance acuity, postoperative reading acuity and postoperative uncorrected distance acuity in photopic conditions (p<0.001). Only two minor adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis multifocal IOL provides a good visual outcome at distance and near with minimal adverse effects.

Astigmatism and vision:should all astigmatism always be corrected?

As technology and medical devices improve, there is much interest in when and how astigmatism should be corrected with refractive surgery. Astigmatism can be corrected by most forms of refractive surgery, such as using excimer lasers algorithms to ablate the cornea to compensate for the magnitude of refractive error in different meridians. Correction of astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery is well developed and can be achieved through incision placement, relaxing incisions and toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. This was less of an issue in the past when there was a lower expectation to be spectacle independent after cataract surgery, in which case the residual refractive error, including astigmatism, could be compensated for with spectacle lenses. The issue of whether presurgical astigmatism should be corrected can be considered separately depending on whether a patient has residual accommodation, and the type of refractive surgery under consideration. We have previously reported on the visual impact of full correction of astigmatism, rather than just correcting the mean spherical equivalent. Correction of astigmatism as low as 1.00 dioptres significantly improves objective and subjective measures of functional vision in prepresbyopes at distance and near.

Ultraviolet damage to the eye revisited:eye-sun protection factor (E-SPF®), a new ultraviolet protection label for eyewear

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation potentially damages the skin, the immune system, and structures of the eye. A useful UV sun protection for the skin has been established. Since a remarkable body of evidence shows an association between UV radiation and damage to structures of the eye, eye protection is important, but a reliable and practical tool to assess and compare the UV-protective properties of lenses has been lacking. Among the general lay public, misconceptions on eye-sun protection have been identified. For example, sun protection is mainly ascribed to sunglasses, but less so to clear lenses. Skin malignancies in the periorbital region are frequent, but usual topical skin protection does not include the lids. Recent research utilized exact dosimetry and demonstrated relevant differences in UV burden to the eye and skin at a given ambient irradiation. Chronic UV effects on the cornea and lens are cumulative, so effective UV protection of the eyes is important for all age groups and should be used systematically. Protection of children's eyes is especially important, because UV transmittance is higher at a very young age, allowing higher levels of UV radiation to reach the crystalline lens and even the retina. Sunglasses as well as clear lenses (plano and prescription) effectively reduce transmittance of UV radiation. However, an important share of the UV burden to the eye is explained by back reflection of radiation from lenses to the eye. UV radiation incident from an angle of 135°-150° behind a lens wearer is reflected from the back side of lenses. The usual antireflective coatings considerably increase reflection of UV radiation. To provide reliable labeling of the protective potential of lenses, an eye-sun protection factor (E-SPF®) has been developed. It integrates UV transmission as well as UV reflectance of lenses. The E-SPF® compares well with established skin-sun protection factors and provides clear messages to eye health care providers and to lay consumers. © 2014 Behar-Cohen et al, This work is published by Dove Medical Press Ltd.

Effectiveness of nonpharmacologic treatments for acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis

Objective To investigate whether artificial tears and cold compress alone or in combination provide a treatment benefit and whether they were as effective as or could enhance topical antiallergic medication. Design Randomized, masked clinical trial. Participants Eighteen subjects (mean age, 29.5±11.0 years) allergic to grass pollen. Intervention Controlled exposure to grass pollen using an environmental chamber to stimulate an ocular allergic reaction followed by application of artificial tears (ATs), 5 minutes of cold compress (CC), ATs combined with CC, or no treatment applied at each separate visit in random order. A subset of 11 subjects also had epinastine hydrochloride (EH) applied alone and combined with CC in random order or instillation of a volume-matched saline control. Main Outcome Measures Bulbar conjunctival hyperemia, ocular surface temperature, and ocular symptoms repeated before and every 10 minutes after treatment for 1 hour. Results Bulbar conjunctival hyperemia and ocular symptoms decreased and temperature recovered to baseline faster with nonpharmaceutical treatments compared with no treatment (P <0.05). Artificial tears combined with CC reduced hyperemia more than other treatments (P <0.05). The treatment effect of EH was enhanced by combining it with a CC (P <0.001). Cold compress combined with ATs or EH lowered the antigen-raised ocular surface temperature to less than the pre-exposure baseline. Artificial tear instillation alone or CC combined with ATs or EH significantly reduced the temperature (P <0.05). Cold compress combined with ATs or EH had a similar cooling effect (P > 0.05). At all measurement intervals, symptoms were reduced for both EH and EH combined with CC than CC or ATs alone or in combination (P <0.014). Conclusions After controlled exposure to grass pollen, CC and AT treatment showed a therapeutic effect on the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis. A CC enhanced the use of EH alone and was the only treatment to reduce symptoms to baseline within 1 hour of antigenic challenge. Signs of allergic conjunctivitis generally were reduced most by a combination of a CC in combination with ATs or EH. © 2014 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired

Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment-matched new back-lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired. Methods: The back-lit and paper MET were administered to 75 visually impaired subjects (28-97 years). Two versions of the back-lit MET acetates were used to match the CS increments with the paper-based MET. Measures of CS were repeated after 30 min and again in the presence of a focal light source directed onto the MET. Visual acuity was measured with a Bailey-Lovie chart and subjects rated how much difficulty they had with face and vehicle recognition. Results: The back-lit MET gave a significantly higher CS than the paper-based version (14.2 ± 4.1 dB vs 11.3 ± 4.3 dB, p < 0.001). A significantly higher reading resulted with repetition of the paper-based MET (by 1.0 ± 1.7 dB, p < 0.001), but this was not evident with the back-lit MET (by 0.1 ± 1.4 dB, p = 0.53). The MET readings were increased by a focal light source, in both the back-lit (by 0.3 ± 0.81, p < 0.01) and paper-based (1.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) versions. CS as measured by the back-lit and paper-based versions of the MET was significantly correlated to patients' perceived ability to recognise faces (r = 0.71, r = 0.85 respectively; p < 0.001) and vehicles (r = 0.67, r = 0.82 respectively; p < 0.001), and with distance visual acuity (both r =-0.64; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The CS increment-matched back-lit MET gives higher CS values than the old paper-based test by approximately 3 dB and is more repeatable and less affected by external light sources. Clinically, the MET score provides information on patient difficulties with visual tasks, such as recognising faces. © 2005 The College of Optometrists.

Report of the inaugural meeting of the TFOS i2 = initiating innovation Series:targeting the unmet need for dry eye treatment

On March 21, 2015, a meeting was held in London, United Kingdom, to address the progress in targeting the unmet need for dry eye disease (DED) treatment. The meeting, which launched the i2 = initiating innovation series, was sponsored by the Tear Film & Ocular Surface Society (TFOS; www.TearFilm.org) and supported by Dompé. The TFOS i2 meeting was designed to review advances in the understanding of DED since publication of the 2007 TFOS International Dry Eye WorkShop (DEWS) report, and to help launch the highly anticipated sequel, DEWS II. The meeting was structured to discuss the scope of the DED problem, to review the clinical challenges of DED, and to consider the treatment challenges of DED. This article provides a synopsis of the presentations of this TFOS i2 meeting.