To evaluate the effects of tear osmolarity on the repeatability of keratometry (K) measurements in patients presenting for cataract surgery. Three clinical practices. Observational prospective nonrandomized study. Subjects were prospectively recruited based on tear osmolarity (Tearlab Osmolarity System); that is, osmolarity more than 316 mOsm/L in at least 1 eye (hyperosmolar) and osmolarity less than 308 mOsm/L in both eyes (normal). The baseline K value was measured, and a second measurement was taken on the same instrument (IOLMaster) within 3 weeks of the first. Variability in average K, calculated corneal astigmatism using vector analysis, and intraocular lens (IOL) sphere power calculations were compared between groups. The hyperosmolar group (50 subjects) had a statistically significantly higher variability in the average K reading (P = .05) than the normal group (25 subjects) and a statistically significantly higher percentage of eyes with a 1.0 diopter (D) or greater difference in the measured corneal astigmatism (P = .02). A statistically significantly higher percentage of eyes in the hyperosmolar group had an IOL power difference of more than 0.5 D (P = .02). No statistically significant differences were present when the subjects were grouped by self-reported dry eye. Significantly more variability in average K and anterior corneal astigmatism was observed in the hyperosmolar group, with significant resultant differences in IOL power calculations. Variability was not significantly different when subjects were grouped by self-reported dry eye. Measurement of tear osmolarity at the time of cataract surgery planning can effectively identify patients with a higher likelihood of high unexpected refractive error resulting from inaccurate keratometry. Drs. Epitropoulos, Matossian, Berdy, and Malhotra received compensation from Tearlab for participating in the study. No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) articles published between 2008 and 2015 that contain clinical outcomes data were reviewed and graded for quality, impression, and potential bias. All 97 relevant articles (representing 67 893 eyes) provided a positive or neutral impression of LASIK. Industry bias was not evident. The aggregate loss of 2 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity was 0.61% (359/58 653). The overall percentage of eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity better than 20/40 was 99.5% (59 503/59 825). The spherical equivalent refraction was within ±1.0 diopter (D) of the target refraction in 98.6% (59 476/60 329) of eyes, with 90.9% (59 954/65 974) within ±0.5 D. In studies reporting patient satisfaction, 1.2% (129/9726) of patients were dissatisfied with LASIK. Aggregate outcomes appear better than those reported in summaries of the safety and effectiveness of earlier laser refractive surgery systems approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Modern results support the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction of the procedure. Proprietary or commercial disclosures are listed after the references.

Objective: To evaluate the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature regarding the use of tear osmolarity as a physiological marker to diagnose, grade severity, and track therapeutic response in dry eye disease (DED). In addition, to review the evidence for the role of tear osmolarity in the pathophysiology of DED and ocular surface disease. Methods: A literature review of all publications after the year 2000, which included the keywords “tear osmolarity”, was conducted. Relevant articles were graded according to quality of evidence and research, using the University of Michigan Practice Guideline and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) rating systems. Articles were further categorized by the nature of any reported financial support and by the overall impression they provided related to tear osmolarity. Results: A total of 164 articles were identified as relevant to the search criteria, although some were editorials, and some were written in a foreign language. Of the total, it was possible to grade 159, and an overall impression was generated for 163. A positive impression of tear osmolarity in DED diagnosis was evident in 72% (117/163) of all articles, with a neutral impression in a further 21% (35/163); 7% had a negative impression. The percentage of positive impressions appeared independent of the quality of research; 73% (38/52) of articles graded high/moderate quality supported the use of tear film osmolarity measurement in DED diagnosis. Impressions were also independent of the source of financial support, with 72% (75/104) of independent studies positive. Conclusion: The literature broadly supports the use of tear film osmolarity as an objective numerical measure for diagnosing, grading severity, and managing treatment of DED.

Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs Kjell G Gundersen,1 Rick Potvin2 1IFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway; 2Science in Vision, Akron, NY, USA Purpose: To compare two different diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) designs, evaluating longer-term refractive outcomes, visual acuity (VA) at various distances, low contrast VA and quality of vision.Patients and methods: Patients with binocularly implanted trifocal IOLs of two different designs (FineVision [FV] and Panoptix [PX]) were evaluated 6 months to 2 years after surgery. Best distance-corrected and uncorrected VA were tested at distance (4 m), intermediate (80 and 60 cm) and near (40 cm). A binocular defocus curve was collected with the subject’s best distance correction in place. The preferred reading distance was determined along with the VA at that distance. Low contrast VA at distance was also measured. Quality of vision was measured with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire near subset and the Quality of Vision questionnaire.Results: Thirty subjects in each group were successfully recruited. The binocular defocus curves differed only at vergences of −1.0 D (FV better, P=0.02), −1.5 and −2.00 D (PX better, P<0.01 for both). Best distance-corrected and uncorrected binocular vision were significantly better for the PX lens at 60 cm (P0.3).Conclusion: Both trifocal lenses provided excellent distance, intermediate and near vision, but several measures indicated that the PX lens provided better intermediate vision at 60 cm. This may be important to users of tablets and other handheld devices. Quality of vision appeared similar between the two lens designs. Keywords: FineVision, Panoptix, multifocal, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity

To develop an algorithm to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power for eyes with previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia based on data from a rotating Scheimpflug camera and to compare calculations with those of current formulas. East Valley Ophthalmology, Mesa, Arizona, USA. Observational case series. Relevant IOL calculation and postoperative refractive data were obtained for eyes of patients who had previous myopic LASIK and subsequent cataract surgery. Initial screening and correlation analysis identified Pentacam Scheimpflug keratometry (K) values appropriate for use in calculating a "best K" for IOL power calculations in these eyes. Error analysis identified other eye measures to improve results. Final results were compared with results from 9 other calculation methods available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) web site. The study obtained data from 101 eyes of 77 patients. More than 200 Scheimpflug K-formula combinations were evaluated for each eye. The true net power in the 4.0 mm zone centered on the corneal apex provided the best adjusted K reading for IOL power calculation in the Shammas no-history formula. The final formula had good outcomes, with 34%, 66%, and 91% of eyes being within ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.50 D, and ±1.00 D of the refractive target, respectively. These results compare favorably to the best formulas on the ASCRS web site. The no-history formula derived using the Scheimpflug device's true net power in the 4.0 mm zone centered on the corneal apex appears to be an accurate method for determining IOL power after LASIK for myopia. Corroboration with additional data sets is suggested. Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Purpose: To analyze intraocular lens (IOL) orientation data from an online toric back-calculator (astigmatismfix.com) for determining if differences were apparent by lens type. Methods: A retrospective review of astigmatismfix.com toric back-calculations that included IOL identification and intended orientation axis. Results: Of 12,812 total validated calculation records, 8,229 included intended orientation and lens identification data. Of the latter, 5,674 calculations (69%) involved lenses oriented 5° or more from their intended position. Using estimated toric lens usage data, the percentage of lenses with orientation ≥5° from intended was 0.89% overall, but the percentage varied significantly between specific toric lens brands (P<0.05). The percentage of back-calculations related to lenses that were not oriented as intended was also statistically significantly different by lens brand (P<0.05). When IOLs were misoriented, they were significantly more likely to be misoriented in a counterclockwise direction (P<0.05). This was found to be due to a bias toward counterclockwise orientation observed with one specific brand, a bias that was not observed with the other three brands analyzed here. Conclusion: The percentage of eyes with lens orientation ≥5° from intended in the Toric Results Analyzer data set was <1% of toric IOLs in general, with the relative percentage of Tecnis^® Toric IOLs significantly higher than AcrySof^® Toric IOLs. Both of these had higher rates than the Staar^® Toric and Trulign^® Toric lenses, with the availability of higher Tecnis and AcrySof cylinder powers a likely contributing factor. The AcrySof Toric IOL appears to be less likely than the Tecnis Toric IOL to cause residual astigmatism as a result of misorientation. The Tecnis Toric IOL appears more likely to be misoriented in a counterclockwise direction; no such bias was observed with the AcrySof Toric, the Trulign^® Toric, or the Staar Toric IOLs.