To assess the visual effects of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared to bifocal IOLs in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis of prospective comparative clinical trials (including 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohorts) was conducted. The defocus curves showed a better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (VA) for the trifocal group (MD −0.07; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.05; p < 0.00001), while the VA outcomes showed no significant difference in distance VA (MD −0.03; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.01; p = 0.13 for uncorrected distance VA and MD −0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.01; p = 0.78 for distance-corrected distance VA), near VA (MD −0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.04; p = 0.68 for uncorrected near VA and MD −0.01; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.04; p = 0.66 for distance-corrected near VA) or refraction between the two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded less conclusive results. Overall, a patient may achieve better intermediate VA with a trifocal IOL than with a bifocal IOL without any adverse effect on distance or near VA. The findings on contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality were heterogeneous, with no clear results favoring either option.

PurposeThe goal of this study was to compare small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) with femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for treating myopia.MethodsThe CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed databases and a Chinese database (SinoMed) were searched in May of 2016. Twelve studies with 1,076 eyes, which included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine cohorts, met our inclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group framework. Data were extracted and analysed at three to six months postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included a loss of one or more lines of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, mean logMAR UCVA, postoperative mean spherical equivalent (SE) and postoperative refraction within ±1.0 D of the target refraction. Secondary outcome measures included ocular surface disease index (OSDI), tear breakup time (TBUT) and Schirmer’s 1 test (S1T) as dry eye parameters, along with corneal sensitivity.ResultsThe overall quality of evidence was considered to be low to very low. Pooled results revealed no significant differences between the two groups with regard to a loss of one or more lines in the BSCVA (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 0.81, 3.63; P = 0.16), UCVA of 20/20 or better (OR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.44, 1.15; P = 0.16), logMAR UCVA (MD 0.00; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.04; P = 0.87), postoperative refractive SE (MD -0.00; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.05; P = 0.97) or postoperative refraction within ±1.0 D of the target refraction (OR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.22, 2.77; P = 0.70) within six months postoperatively. The pooled analysis also indicated that the FS-LASIK group suffered more severely from dry eye symptoms (OSDI; MD -6.68; 95% CI: -11.76, -2.00; P = 0.006) and lower corneal sensitivity (MD 12.40; 95% CI: 10.23, 14.56; P < 0.00001) at six months postoperatively.ConclusionsIn conclusion, both FS-LASIK and SMILE are safe, effective and predictable surgical options for treating myopia. However, dry eye symptoms and loss of corneal sensitivity may occur less frequently after SMILE than after FS-LASIK.

PurposeTo compare dry eye after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK) for correcting myopia.MethodsCENTRAL, Embase and PubMed were searched in November 2016. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohorts that compared dry eye after SMILE with FS-LASIK were selected.ResultsFive cohorts and one RCT were identified for comparing dry eye after SMILE (291 eyes) and FS-LASIK (277 eyes). The pooled results revealed that the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups did not differ significantly in terms of Schirmer’s I test (SIT) and tear film osmolarity (TFO) at any postoperative visits. By contrast, tear break up time (TBUT; p = 0.04 for one month, p < 0.001 for three months, and p = 0.02 for six months) and ocular surface disease index (OSDI; p < 0.001 for one month and three months, and p = 0.006 for six months) were significantly worse in the FS-LASIK group than in the SMILE group at follow-up. At six months postoperatively, TBUT and TFO values in both the SMILE and FS-LASIK groups and OSDI scores in the SMILE group returned to preoperative levels, but SIT values in both groups (p = 0.02 for the SMILE group and p < 0.001 for the FS-LASIK group) and OSDI in the FS-LASIK group (p < 0.001) were still statistically impaired.ConclusionDry eye after both SMILE and FS-LASIK usually occurs transiently. SMILE does not show obvious superiority over FS-LASIK by exhibiting similar and acceptable objective parameters, and SMILE may have milder subjective symptoms.

No abstract

BackgroundAdding a second endoscopic therapy to epinephrine injection might improve hemostatic efficacy in patients with high-risk bleeding ulcers but the optimum modality remains unknown. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy of different dual endoscopic therapies for the management of bleeding peptic ulcers through random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis.MethodsDifferent databases were searched for controlled trials comparing dual therapy versus epinephrine monotherapy or epinephrine combined with another second modality until September, 30 2016. We estimated the ORs for rebleeding, surgery and mortality among different treatments. Adverse events were also evaluated.ResultsSeventeen eligible articles were included in the network meta-analysis. The addition of mechanical therapy (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.07–0.52 and OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01–0.50, respectively) after epinephrine injection significantly reduced the probability of rebleeding and surgery. Similarly, patients who received epinephrine plus thermal therapy showed a significantly decreased rebleeding rate (OR 0.30, 95% CrI 0.10–0.91), as well as a non-significant reduction in surgery (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.16–1.20). Although differing, epinephrine plus mechanical therapy did not provide a significant reduction in rebleeding (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.19–2.22) and surgery (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.03–1.73) compared to epinephrine plus thermal therapy. Sclerosant failed to confer further benefits and was ranked highest among the 5 treatments in relation to adverse events.ConclusionsMechanical therapy was the most appropriate modality to add to epinephrine injection. Epinephrine plus thermal coagulation was effective for controlling high risk bleeding ulcers. There was no further benefit with sclerosants with regard to rebleeding or surgery, and sclerosants were also associated with more adverse events than any other modality.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-017-0610-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Visual impairment is a global public health problem that needs new candidate drugs. Chrysanthemum is a traditional Chinese drug, famous for its eye-protective function, with an unclear mechanism of action. To determine how chrysanthemum contributes to vision, we identified, for the first time, the component of chrysanthemum, diosmetin (DIO), which acts in protecting the injured retina in an adriamycin (ADR) improving model. We observed that DIO could attenuate the apoptosis of retinal cells in Sprague–Dawley rats and verified this effect in cultured human retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells, ARPE-19. Our further study on the mechanism revealed the counteractive effect of DIO on the attenuation of DNA damage and oxidative stress, which occurs in a wide range of retinal disorders. These results collectively promise the potential value of DIO as a retinal-protective agent for disorders that lead to blindness. In addition, we identified, for the first time, the component of chrysanthemum, DIO, which acts in protecting the injured retina.

No abstract