Objective: Ring infiltrates usually accompany numerous infectious and sterile ocular disorders. Nevertheless, systemic conditions, drugs toxicity and contact lens wear may present with corneal ring infiltrate in substantial part. Considering its detrimental effect on vision, detailed knowledge on etiology, pathophysiology, differential diagnosis, and management should be considered essential for every ophthalmologist.Methods: The PUBMED database was searched for “corneal ring infiltrate” and “ring infiltrate” phrases, “sterile corneal infiltrate” and “corneal infiltrate”. We analyzed articles written in English on risk factors, pathophysiology, clinical manifestation, morphological features, ancillary tests (anterior-segment optical coherence tomography, corneal scraping, in vivo confocal microscopy), differential diagnosis and management of corneal ring infiltrate.Results: Available literature depicts multifactorial origin of corneal ring infiltrate. Dual immunological pathophysiology, involving both antibodies-dependent and -independent complement activation, is underlined. Furthermore, we found that the worldwide most prevalent among non-infectious and infectious ring infiltrates are ring infiltrates related to contact-lens wear and bacterial keratitis respectively. Despite low incidence of Acanthamoeba keratitis, it manifests with corneal ring infiltrate with the highest proportion of the affected patients (one third). However, similar ring infiltrate might appear as a first sign of general diseases manifestation and require targeted treatment. Every corneal ring infiltrate with compromised epithelium should be scraped and treat as an infectious infiltrate until not proven otherwise. Of note, microbiological ulcer might also lead to immunological ring and therefore require anti-inflammatory treatment.Conclusion: Corneal ring infiltrate might be triggered not only by ocular infectious and non-infectious factors, but also by systemic conditions. Clinical assessment is crucial for empirical diagnosis. Furthermore, treatment is targeted towards the underlying condition but should begin with anti-infectious regimen until not proven otherwise.

A healthy ocular surface is inhabited by microorganisms that constitute the ocular microbiome. The core of the ocular microbiome is still a subject of debate. Numerous culture-dependent and gene sequencing studies have revealed the composition of the ocular microbiome. There was a confirmed correlation between the ocular microbiome and ocular surface homeostasis as well as between ocular dysbiosis and pathologies such as blepharitis, microbial keratitis, and conjunctivitis. However, the role of the ocular microbiome in the pathogenesis and treatment of ocular surface diseases remains unclear. This article reviews available data on the ocular microbiome and microbiota, their role in maintaining ocular homeostasis, and the impact of dysbiosis on several ophthalmic disorders. Moreover, we aimed to discuss potential treatment targets within the ocular microbiota.

Microbial keratitis in a post-transplant cornea should be considered a distinct entity from microbial keratitis in a non-transplant cornea. Firstly, the use of immunosuppressive treatments and sutures in corneal transplants changes the etiology of keratitis. Secondly, corneal transplant has an impact on corneal biomechanics and structure, which facilitates the spread of infection. Finally, the emergence of lamellar transplants has introduced a new form of keratitis known as interface keratitis. Given these factors, there is a clear need to update our understanding of and management strategies for microbial keratitis following corneal transplantation, especially in the era of lamellar transplants. To address this, a comprehensive review is provided, covering the incidence, risk factors, causes, and timing of microbial keratitis, as well as both clinical and surgical management approaches for its treatment in cases of penetrating and lamellar corneal transplants.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the reorganization of the health care system. A decline in health- and life-saving procedures has been reported in various medical specialties. However, data on ophthalmic emergencies during lockdowns is limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational, case-control study of 2351 patients registered at the ophthalmic emergency department of a tertiary hospital in Poland during three national COVID-19 lockdowns (March/April 2020, November 2020, and March/April 2021) and corresponding months in 2019. Results: The total number of visits declined from a mean of 720/month in the non-COVID era to 304/month during COVID-19 lockdowns (p < 0.001). Ocular trauma incidence dropped significantly from 2019 (non-COVID months) to 2020/2021 (COVID group mean 201 vs. 97 patients monthly, respectively, p = 0.03). Of note, the percentage of foreign bodies removal was significantly higher during lockdowns than corresponding time in the non-COVID era. A downward trend for vitreous detachment and macular disorders cases was observed between COVID and non-COVID time. Uveitis and optic neuritis patients were seen more often during lockdowns (p < 0.001 and p = 0.0013, respectively). In contrast, the frequency of conjunctivitis and keratitis, potentially COVID-related problems, decreased significantly in COVID-19 time (mean 138 vs. 23 per month in non-COVID vs. COVID lockdowns, respectively, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The overall number of eye emergency visits declined during COVID-19 lockdowns. Conjunctivitis and keratitis rates dropped during the lockdowns. Interestingly, the frequency of immune-mediated ocular conditions (uveitis, optic neuritis) increased significantly which might be triggered by SARS-CoV2 infection.

Background: To assess the difference in course and final visual outcome of Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) patients based on the first healthcare provider (HCP) seen. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study of AK patients admitted to the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital between 2003 and 2017. HCPs were grouped (Group 1: Optometrists, Opticians; Group 2: General Practitioners (GPs); Group 3: Ophthalmologists) and the data analyzed on demographics, risk factors, clinical history, clinical features, and Acanthamoeba subspecies. Results: Forty-one patients with unilateral culture-proven AK were included. Median time to consultation with first HCP was 7 days (IQR 4– 14 days), while mean time to the correct diagnosis of AK was 15 days (IQR 7– 29 days). Patients saw an optician, optometrist or ophthalmologists significantly earlier than GPs (median 4 days, vs 15 or 5 days, respectively, p = 0.04). Bacterial keratitis was the most common initial clinical diagnosis (43%). The shortest time to making the AK diagnosis (median 11 days) and the highest rate of initiating AK treatment started at the first visit (38%) were both in the ophthalmologists’ group. No significant differences were observed in initial and final visual acuity between HCP groups (p = 0.36). Conclusion: AK patients often seek ocular help earlier from optometrists and opticians than medical doctors. Final clinical outcomes did not significantly differ based on the first HCP seen, but ophthalmologists were more likely to make the diagnosis of AK and initiate anti-amoebal therapy faster than other HCPs. Greater education and collaboration between ophthalmologists and other HCPs to increase awareness of AK are needed.

As intraocular lens (IOL) technology continues to evolve, the selection of an optimal refractive target has become increasingly complex and critical to achieving patient satisfaction following cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange. A recently proposed classification system divides IOLs into partial- and full-range-of-field categories based on defocus curve characteristics. However, this framework does not fully capture the diversity of modern IOL designs or account for key optical factors such as spherical aberration and lens-specific tolerance to residual refractive error. This review highlights the importance of understanding the interaction between IOL optical properties—particularly spherical aberration profiles—and refractive target strategies. It examines how different IOL designs, including enhanced monofocal, extended depth-of-field (EDOF), and full-range-of-vision lenses (eg, multifocal or spiral optics), respond to various refractive targets. The evidence suggests that a universal refractive target (eg, plano) may be suboptimal for many advanced IOLs and that customized refractive planning—often incorporating mini-monovision or asymmetrical targets—can improve visual outcomes. Future research should aim to standardize defocus measurement techniques and refine classification systems to better guide clinical decision-making.