Atropine has previously been found to suppress visually induced myopia both in animals and humans. The mechanism of its action is unclear. We have studied its retinal effects in an in vitro preparation, using the retina-pigment epithelium-choroid complex of the chick eye. In vivo, deprivation myopia was induced by translucent goggles. Atropine solution was injected into the vitreous at two-day intervals. Dopamine release from the retina following atropine injection in vivo and from the in vitro retina preparation was quantified by HPLC-EC. In vitro preparations of the isolated chick retina-pigment epithelium-choroid were superfused with atropine. Light-induced potentials (local ERG), slow standing potentials from the retinal pigment epithelium/neural retina, and extracellular potassium concentrations were recorded. In line with previous findings, intravitreal injections of atropine (25 microg, 250 microg) reduced deprivation myopia in a dose-dependent manner. Atropine increased the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine into the superfusate in vitro at 100-500 microM and into the vitreous in vivo at 250 microg. Before an increase was measured in the vitreous, the retinal dopamine content was elevated. In concentrations equivalent to the intravitreal concentration to suppress myopia in vivo (200-800 microM), atropine induced spreading depression (SD) in the in vitro preparation. In contrast, muscarinic agonists, acetylcholine and pilocarpine, did not induce SD. Atropine reduced the ERG b- and d-wave, led to damped oscillations of RPE potentials, and reversed the ERG c-wave. Atropine suppressed myopia only at doses at which severe nonspecific side effects were observed in the retina. Atropine seems to intrude massively into the vital functions of the retina as indicated by the occurrence of SD. We conclude that atropine, by inducing SD, boosts neurotransmitter release from cellular stores, which may cancel out a presumed retinal signal that controls eye growth and through this, myopia.

The aspherical diffractive Tecnis multifocal IOL gave better outcomes than the Array multifocal IOL.

The evaluated trifocal diffractive toric IOL provides an effective restoration of the distance, intermediate, and near vision after cataract surgery with good levels of visual quality and minimal photic phenomena.

Contrast sensitivity outcomes and patient satisfaction remained high in the trifocal group when compared to the bifocal IOL groups.

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and performance of the second generation of an implantable intraocular pressure (IOP) sensor in patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG).DESIGN: prospective, noncomparative, open-label, multicenter clinical investigation.METHODS: In this study, patients with POAG, regularly scheduled for cataract surgery, were implanted with a ring-shaped, sulcus-placed, foldable IOP sensor in a single procedure after intraocular lens implantation. Surgical complications as well as adverse events (AEs) during 12 months of follow-up were recorded. At each follow-up visit, a complete ophthalmic examination, including visual acuity, IOP, slit lamp examination, and dilated funduscopy as well as comparative measurements between Goldmann applanation tonometry and the EYEMATE-IO implant were performed.RESULTS: The EYEMATE-IO implant was successfully implanted in 22 patients with few surgical complications and no unexpected device-related AEs. All ocular AEs resolved quickly under appropriate treatment. Comparative measurements showed good agreement between EYEMATE-IO and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,k)) of 0.783 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.743, 0.817). EYEMATE-IO measurements were higher than GAT, with a mean difference of 3.2 mm Hg (95% CI: 2.8, 3.5 mm Hg).CONCLUSIONS: The EYEMATE-IO sensor was safely implanted in 22 patients and performed reliably until the end of follow-up. This device allows for continual and long-term measurements of IOP.

Purpose Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes. Under real-life conditions, however, the necessity for frequent retreatments and reexaminations poses a burden for patients and treatment centers. Non-adherence and non-persistence to intravitreal treatment may lead to inferior clinical outcomes, and knowledge of contributing factors is crucial to improve adherence. This systematic review analyzes current literature for potential factors involved in non-adherence and non-persistence. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase including three different aspects of intravitreal injection therapy: (1) diseases with intravitreal injections as treatment, (2) intravitreal injection, and (3) aspects of therapy adherence or therapy persistence. Data from identified quantitative studies were further extracted and grouped according to WHO criteria (condition, socio-economy, therapy, patient, and health system). The methodological quality of identified studies was graded. Identified qualitative studies (i.e., interviews) were descriptively analyzed and their findings narratively reported. Results Twenty-four publications were included. In 16 of those publications, a quantitative data analysis was conducted, analyzing factors associated with non-adherence. Worse visual acuity at baseline and unfavorable development of visual acuity, higher age, and greater distance to the treatment center were associated with non-adherence, while there was inconsistent evidence for an association of comorbidity. In qualitative studies, high follow-up/treatment burden, fear and anxiety, disappointed patient expectations, and lack of motivation to continue treatment were reported as reasons for non-persistence. Conclusions Knowledge of potential barriers in IVT treatment may improve adherence and potentially clinical results. Improvements can be achieved particularly in the healthcare complex (organizational improvements) and the “patient” complex by establishing realistic expectations. Recurrent education of the patient may be necessary.

The trifocal diffractive-refractive IOL provides enhanced intermediate visual restoration compared to bifocal diffractive-refractive or apodized diffractive IOLs. The addition of an intermediate focal point did not deteriorate far or near vision. A comparable reading performance was maintained with the trifocal lens. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(10):655-662.].

The aspheric IOL and young crystalline lens compensated for mean corneal spherical aberration, resulting in low total spherical aberration. The position of the IOLs showed minimal decentration and tilt and was mirror symmetrical, comparable to the position of the crystalline lens in young individuals. The slight malpositioning partially compensated for corneal horizontal coma.