No abstract

Purpose To compare the difference and agreement of axial length (AL) and anterior segment parameters obtained from the MYAH device with Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700 in myopic children. Methods The study included 60 eyes of 60 myopic children. AL, keratometry (K), and horizontal corneal diameter (CD) were measured with Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, and MYAH, respectively. The Friedman test was used to assess the differences. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the consistency of measurements. Results The mean age was 10.2 ± 1.8 years (7–16 years). No statistically significant difference was determined between the Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, and MYAH devices in terms of mean AL values (23.61 ± 1.42, 23.62 ± 1.45, 23.61 ± 1.42, respectively) ( p = 0.06). The difference between devices in the mean steep K, flat K, mean K, and CD was statistically significant but clinically insignificant (steep K; 44.45 ± 1.25, 44.59 ± 1.23, 44.51 ± 1.24, flat K; 43.29 ± 1.28, 43.43 ± 1.29, 43.35 ± 1.30, mean K; 43.85 ± 1.21, 44.00 ± 1.19, 43.94 ± 1.20, and CD; 11.90 ± 0.34, 12.11 ± 0.38, 11.96 ± 0.31, respectively; p < 0.05). ICC and Bland–Altman plot analysis revealed a high correlation between the three devices in AL, steep K, flat K, mean K, and CD measurements. Conclusion There was a quite good agreement between the MYAH, Pentacam AXL, and IOLMaster 700 devices regarding AL and anterior segment parameters. MYAH provides reliable measurements and will be a good option in the diagnosis of and follow-up with myopic children.

Objective To compare the visual outcomes of a non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) with an enhanced monofocal IOL. Methods We evaluated 76 eyes from 38 patients who had undergone bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of either an EDoF IOL (AcrySof IQ Vivity, n = 40 eyes) or an enhanced monofocal IOL (Tecnis Eyhance, n = 36 eyes). Objective refraction, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, DCIVA), uncorrected and distance-corrected near visual acuity (UNVA, DCNVA), binocular defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, halo and glare perception, and spectacle independence were compared. Results Monocular and binocular UDVA, CDVA, UIVA, and DCIVA were comparable in both groups, whereas UNVA and DCNVA were significantly better with the Vivity group than with the Eyhance group. The two groups had no statistically significant difference regarding photopic and scotopic contrast sensitivities or halo and glare perception. Compared to the Eyhance IOL, the Vivity IOL had a larger landing zone in the defocus curve and provided higher spectacle independence for near vision. Conclusion Both the AcrySof IQ Vivity and Tecnis Eyhance IOLs had excellent distant and intermediate visual acuity, while the former had more satisfactory near vision outcomes with greater spectacle independence rate. No differences were obtained between two IOLs in terms of patient satisfaction and visual disturbances such as halo and glare.