Purpose. To compare the through-focus visual performance in a clinical population of pseudophakic patients implanted with two new trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and one extended depth of focus IOL. Methods. Prospective, nonrandomized, examiner-masked case series. Twenty-three patients received the FineVision® and seven patients received the PanOptix™ trifocal IOLs. Fifteen patients received the Symfony extended depth of focus IOL. Mean age of patients was 63 ± 8 years. Through-focus visual acuity was measured from –3.00 to +1.00 D vergences. Contrast sensitivity was measured with and without a source of glare. Light disturbances were evaluated with the Light Distortion Analyzer. Results. Though-focus evaluation showed that trifocal IOLs performed significantly better at near distance (33 and 40 cm), and extended depth of focus performed significantly better at intermediate distance (1.0 m). Contrast sensitivity function with glare and dysphotopsia was similar between the three IOLs and subjective response to questionnaire showed a significantly higher score (worse performance) for the extended depth of focus IOL compared to both trifocal IOLs in the bothersome subscale (p<0.05). Conclusions. Trifocal IOLs grant better performance at near distance while extended depth of focus IOL performs better at intermediate distance. Objective dysphotopsia measured with the Light Distortion Analyzer is not reduced in extended depth of focus IOL compared to trifocal IOLs.

We compared the efficacy of controlling the annual increase in axial length (AL) in myopic Caucasian children based on two parameters: the back optic zone diameter (BOZD) of the orthokeratology (OK) lens and plus power ring diameter (PPRD) or mid-peripheral annular ring of corneal steepening. Data from 71 myopic patients (mean age, 13.34 ± 1.38 years; range, 10–15 years; 64% male) corrected with different BOZD OK lenses (DRL, Precilens) were collected retrospectively from a Spanish optometric clinic. The sample was divided into groups with BOZDs above or below 5.00 mm and the induced PPRD above or below 4.5 mm, and the relation to AL and refractive progression at 12 months was analyzed. Three subgroups were analyzed, i.e., plus power ring (PPR) inside, outside, or matching the pupil. The mean baseline myopia was −3.11 ± 1.46 D and the AL 24.65 ± 0.88 mm. Significant (p < 0.001) differences were found after 12 months of treatment in the refractive error and AL for the BOZD and PPRD. AL changes in subjects with smaller BOZDs decreased significantly regarding larger diameters (0.09 ± 0.12 and 0.15 ± 0.11 mm, respectively); in subjects with a horizontal sector of PPRD falling inside the pupil, the AL increased less (p = 0.035) than matching or outside the pupil groups by 0.04 ± 0.10 mm, 0.10 ± 0.11 mm, and 0.17 ± 0.12 mm, respectively. This means a 76% lesser AL growth or 0.13 mm/year in absolute reduction. OK corneal parameters can be modified by changing the OK lens designs, which affects myopia progression and AL elongation. Smaller BOZD induces a reduced PPRDs that slows AL elongation better than standard OK lenses. Further investigations should elucidate the effect of pupillary diameter, PPRD, and power change on myopia control.

Several refractive and therapeutic treatments as well as several ocular or systemic diseases might induce changes in the mechanical resistance of the cornea. Furthermore, intraocular pressure measurement, one of the most used clinical tools, is also highly dependent on this characteristic. Corneal biomechanical properties can be measured now in the clinical setting with different instruments. In the present work, we review the potential role of the biomechanical properties of the cornea in different fields of ophthalmology and visual science in light of the definitions of the fundamental properties of matter and the results obtained from the different instruments available. The body of literature published so far provides an insight into how the corneal mechanical properties change in different sight-threatening ocular conditions and after different surgical procedures. The future in this field is very promising with several new technologies being applied to the analysis of the corneal biomechanical properties.

To evaluate different aspects of the visual-related quality of life using the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life (NEI RQL)-42 questionnaire in low and moderate myopic subjects corrected with different refractive treatments including laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), orthokeratology (OK), soft contact lenses (SCLs), and spectacles. The NEI RQL-42 questionnaire was administered to 217 subjects at one single clinic. All the questions consisted of 13 different subscales that were analyzed separately. The results from subjects with -1.00 to -3.00 diopter myopia corrected with LASIK (n=41), OK (n=37), SCLs (n=44), or spectacles (n=45) were compared with each other and with emmetropic subjects (n=50). Statistically significant differences among all groups were found in all subscales, except for satisfaction with correction (P=0.135). The average decrease in quality of life compared with emmetropes were -7.1% (P=0.021) for LASIK, -13.0% (P<0.001) for OK, -15.8% (P<0.001) for spectacles, and -17.3% (P<0.001) for SCLs. Although all patients in each group were considered to be successfully visually corrected, quality of life related to vision was markedly different in certain NEI RQL-42 categories. LASIK showed the lowest average decrease in quality of vision compared with emmetropes. OK was comparable with LASIK in independence of visual correction, and SCL wear was superior to LASIK and OK lens wear in glare. Except for glare and diurnal fluctuations, contact lenses (SCL and OK) were comparable with or superior to spectacle correction.