Partial coherence biometry using the IOLMaster for AL measurement was highly reliable, offering observer-independent measurement results.

No abstract

There was neither a statistically nor a clinically significant difference in endothelial cell loss after the use of Healon5 or Viscoat in routine cataract surgery. However, the IOP in the early postoperative period was higher in the Viscoat group than in the Healon5 group.

Purpose:To measure the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) after inhalation of hyperpolarized 3 He in healthy volunteers and lung transplant recipients, and demonstrate the gravity dependence of ADC values. Materials and Methods:Six healthy volunteers, 10 patients after single-lung transplantation, and six patients after double-lung transplantation were examined at 1.5T during inspiration and expiration. The inhalation of 300 mL of hyperpolarized 3 He was performed with a computer-controlled delivery device. A two-dimensional fast low-angle shot (FLASH) sequence measured the 3 He diffusive gas movement. From these data the ADC was calculated. Results:The mean ADC was 0.143 cm 2 /second in healthy individuals, 0.162 cm 2 /second in transplanted healthy lungs, and 0.173 cm 2 /second in rejected transplanted lungs, whereas it was 0.216 cm 2 /second in native fibrotic lungs and 0.239 cm 2 /second in emphysematous lungs. The difference in mean ADC values among healthy lungs, healthy transplanted lungs, and native diseased lungs was significant (P Ͻ 0.001). In inspiration the healthy volunteers showed higher ADC values in the anterior than in the posterior parts of the lungs. In expiration this gradient doubled. Conclusion:An anterior-posterior (A/P) gradient was found in inspiration and expiration in healthy lungs. Healthy, transplanted, and native diseased lungs had significantly different mean ADC values. From our preliminary results, 3 He MRI appears to be sensitive for detecting areas of abnormal ventilation in transplanted lungs.

Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure measurements obtained with SmartLens, a gonioscopic contact lens, to those from Goldmann applanation tonometry. Methods: Eighty volunteers (20 healthy individuals and 60 glaucoma patients from the university eye hospital's outpatient department) were examined using conventional Goldmann tonometry and the new SmartLens tool. For each device three replicate measurements were performed. A paired t-test and the corresponding mean difference confidence interval approach were used to assess deviations in location of the two tonometric methods; the test procedure of Maloney and Rastogi was used for comparison of precision in paired data. Intraindividual differences were evaluated according to the approach of Altman and Bland. Results: There was a mean difference of 5.6 mmHg (95% CI: 4.3 mmHg; 6.8 mmHg; P<0.01) in intraocular pressure between the two methods with a significant overestimation by SmartLens tonometry compared to Goldmann tonometry (P<0.01). The 95%-limits of agreement ranged from -5.4 mmHg to +16.6 mmHg for individual patients. The measurement method variance of SmartLens was higher (Maloney-Rastogi test; P <0.01). The mean coefficients of variation for intraindividual replicates were 10.1% (SmartLens) and 3.8% (Goldmann; P <0.01). Conclusions: Accepting Goldmann tonometry as gold standard for intraocular pressure measurement, the SmartLens method shows considerable variation and therefore is not proven to be an adequate substitute for Goldmann tonometry.