Abstract:To compare the differences between the apparent and actual chord μ. Methods: In this prospective, comparative, non-randomized, and non-interventional study, imaging examinations using Pentacam and the HD Analyzer were performed in the same room under the same scotopic conditions. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 21-71 years, able to provide informed consent, myopia up to 4D, and anterior topographic astigmatism up to 1D. Patients using contact lenses, those with previous eye diseases or surgeries, cor… Show more
“…Given that pupil size decreases with age [ 29 ], differences in its value between previous studies [ 25 , 28 ] and our study may rise from the different age of cohorts. Previous studies included younger participants (30.69 ± 7.85 years [ 25 ] and 40.3 ± 16.9 years [ 28 ]) than in our study (mean, 67.2 ± 11.2 years). In addition, the devices use different principles.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…There was a statistically significant difference (1.8 ± 1.2 mm, p < 0.01) between the measurements of the two devices for healthy eyes. Rodrigues et al [ 25 ] reported that Pentacam showed a shorter pupil diameter (3.31 mm; range, 1.87 to 5.23 mm), than the HD analyzer (5.76 mm; range, 2.50 to 8.60 mm).…”
Purpose: To evaluate repeatability and agreement of chord mu between Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam HR) and sweptsource optical coherence tomography–based optical biometer (IOLMaster 700).Methods: In this retrospective study, 63 eyes from 33 patients were included. Chord mu, X and Y Cartesian distances between the corneal vertex and the pupil center (Px and Py), and the pupil diameter were compared using two instruments. Repeatability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CoV), and within-subject standard deviation (Sw). Interdevice agreement was evaluated using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots.Results: Although Sw values for all parameters were similar between the two devices, CoV values of chord mu and pupil diameter were lower, and ICC values of those parameters were higher, in the IOLMaster 700 than in the Pentacam HR. Chord mu and pupil diameter values were higher in IOLMaster 700 than Pentacam HR (p < 0.01). The width of the 95% limit of agreement was wide for all parameters.Conclusions: IOLMaster 700 showed better repeatability than Pentacam HR in chord mu, Px, Py, and pupil diameter values. Because there were statistically significant differences and a low level of agreement in chord mu and pupil diameter values between the two devices, they cannot be used interchangeably.
“…Given that pupil size decreases with age [ 29 ], differences in its value between previous studies [ 25 , 28 ] and our study may rise from the different age of cohorts. Previous studies included younger participants (30.69 ± 7.85 years [ 25 ] and 40.3 ± 16.9 years [ 28 ]) than in our study (mean, 67.2 ± 11.2 years). In addition, the devices use different principles.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…There was a statistically significant difference (1.8 ± 1.2 mm, p < 0.01) between the measurements of the two devices for healthy eyes. Rodrigues et al [ 25 ] reported that Pentacam showed a shorter pupil diameter (3.31 mm; range, 1.87 to 5.23 mm), than the HD analyzer (5.76 mm; range, 2.50 to 8.60 mm).…”
Purpose: To evaluate repeatability and agreement of chord mu between Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam HR) and sweptsource optical coherence tomography–based optical biometer (IOLMaster 700).Methods: In this retrospective study, 63 eyes from 33 patients were included. Chord mu, X and Y Cartesian distances between the corneal vertex and the pupil center (Px and Py), and the pupil diameter were compared using two instruments. Repeatability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CoV), and within-subject standard deviation (Sw). Interdevice agreement was evaluated using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots.Results: Although Sw values for all parameters were similar between the two devices, CoV values of chord mu and pupil diameter were lower, and ICC values of those parameters were higher, in the IOLMaster 700 than in the Pentacam HR. Chord mu and pupil diameter values were higher in IOLMaster 700 than Pentacam HR (p < 0.01). The width of the 95% limit of agreement was wide for all parameters.Conclusions: IOLMaster 700 showed better repeatability than Pentacam HR in chord mu, Px, Py, and pupil diameter values. Because there were statistically significant differences and a low level of agreement in chord mu and pupil diameter values between the two devices, they cannot be used interchangeably.
“…In addition, the lens' anterior surface is configured with a negative spherical aberration to counterbalance the cornea's positive spherical aberration. 15,16,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] The advantages associated with the utilization of the TECNIS Synergy IOL in both eyes (hereinafter referred to as the ZFR00V IOL) and the potential enhancement of patient outcomes associated with the combined utilization of the TECNIS Eyhance and TECNIS Synergy IOLs (from now on referred to as ZFR00V/ICB00) remain unaddressed because of the lack of substantial evidence. 15,16,[20][21][22] Thus, we aimed to compare the clinical results associated with the use of ZFR00V in both eyes with those associated with the use of ZFR00V/ICB00.…”
Purpose:
To compare clinical outcomes following implantation of Tecnis Synergy (ZFR00V) IOLs in both eyes and implantation of the Tecnis Synergy and Tecnis Eyhance (ICB00) combination in patients undergoing cataract surgery.
Methods:
Setting:
Department of Cataract at the Hospital Oftalmológico de Brasilia(HOB).
Design:
Prospective, interventional, randomized, parallel-group study.
Results:
Visual acuity was similar between the two groups (95% CI < 0.1 logMAR). A superior visual acuity of ≥ 20/25 (at -2.00 to -2.50 D) was achieved in Group 1 (bilateral ZFR00V) than in Group 2 (combination of ZFR00V/ICB00). The binocular defocus curve demonstrated better visual acuity at 40 cm (-2.00D) and 50 cm (-2.50D) in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p < 0.05). Similar contrast sensitivity values were observed between the two groups. Patients in Group 1 reported higher satisfaction (completely satisfied) than those in Group 2 (p < 0.05). However, halos and glare were more pronounced in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
Both presbyopia-correcting IOL combinations showed similar binocular visual acuity results. Group 1 demonstrated enhanced visual acuity in the defocus curve at 40 cm (-2.00D) and 50 cm (-2.50D). Comparable contrast sensitivity outcomes were observed in both groups. Patients were more completely satisfied in Group 1 than Group 2, despite the higher frequency of postoperative nighttime halos and glare.
Purpose Compare refractive results between mechanical PRK (mPRK) and transepithelial PRK (tPRK) with WaveLight Allegretto EX500 excimer laser system (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA). Setting Department of Ophthalmology of the Federal University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Design Prospective and randomized study. Methods In 151 eyes of 73 patients with astigmatism and myopia, both eyes had similar refraction before surgery, with a maximum of 15-µm difference in ablation who underwent mPRK in one eye and tPRK in the contralateral eye. The mean age of the patients in this study was 31.45 ± 6.97 years (range, 22 to 54 years). Results A comparison was made with all variables between the two groups, and we found that UDVA and SE were worse in the tPRK group at six months than in the mPRK group. In the mPRK group, there was a higher frequency in the +/- 0.50 range and a lower frequency in the +/- 1.50 range. In the tPRK group, however, there was a lower frequency in the +/- 0.50 range and a higher frequency in the +/- 1.50 range. Concerning gain or loss of lines of sight, there was no association between the two groups (chi-square test, p = 0.887). Conclusion Both mPRK and tPRK appear to have similar safety. However, mPRK was associated with significantly better UDVA and SE six months post-operatively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.