Background: To evaluate the efficacy of 1% and 2% rebamipide clear solution in the treatment of dry eye disease (DED). Methods: Two hundred twenty patients with DED were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the 1% rebamipide, 2% rebamipide, or placebo (eye drops containing the same ingredients, except for the active components). Each eye drop was instilled four times daily for 12 weeks. Changes in tear film break-up time (TBUT), corneal and conjunctival staining score, Schirmer 1 test, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) from baseline to 12-week visit between the study groups were compared for efficacy assessment. Results: The mean age of study patients was 43.8±14.2 years. The 1% and 2% rebamipide groups showed greater improvement in TBUT (1.99±1.87 and 2.02±2.21 s) at 12 weeks from baseline than the placebo group (1.25±2.93 s). The 2% rebamipide group showed greater improvement in the corneal staining score (− 3.15±2.00) at 12 weeks from baseline than the placebo group (− 2.85±1.80). The 1% and 2% rebamipide groups showed improvement in Schirmer 1 test (1.27±3.86 and 1.50±4.14 mm) at 12 weeks of treatment, but not the placebo group (0.55±2.99 mm). Both the rebamipide groups and the placebo group showed significantly improved OSDI after treatment for 12 weeks; however, there was no significant difference among the three groups. Conclusions: 1% and 2% rebamipide clear solutions are an effective therapeutic option for improving TBUT and tear volume, and stabilizing the corneal staining score in DED.

Background: To compare the visual outcomes and optical quality of patients who underwent bilateral implantation of EDOF (AcrySof^® IQ Vivity IOL, DFT015) for mini-monovision, trifocal (AcrySof^® IQ PanOptix, TNFT00), or monofocal (AcrySof^® IQ IOL, SN60WF) IOL. Methods: The monocular-corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuities (CDVA and UDVA, respectively) were evaluated postoperatively at 1 and 3 months. The binocular visual acuity by distance, the binocular defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction were examined 3 months postoperatively. All patients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their satisfaction, visual symptoms, and spectacle dependency. Results: This study included 178 eyes from 89 patients. The postoperative binocular UDVA did not differ significantly among the three groups. In the defocus curve, the Vivity group showed better visual acuity over a range of far and intermediate (60 cm) than the other two IOLs groups. In near-vision, the PanOptix group showed the best near-vision, and the Vivity group showed significantly better vision than the IQ group. The Vivity group showed contrast sensitivity and optical quality comparable to the IQ group. Conclusions: The bilateral implantation of AcrySof^® IQ Vivity IOL with the mini-monovision approach provided excellent distance and intermediate visual acuity with good near-vision, resulting in high satisfaction.

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to analyze the accuracy of the SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Kane, and EVO intraocular lens (IOL) formulas for normal and long axial length (AL) groups using an ARGOS (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA), which uses the specific refractive indices. Methods: We performed a review of patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with the implantation of an Acrysof IQ SN60WF IOL (Alcon, Inc.) between January 2020 and December 2021. Biometry was obtained with the ARGOS; patients were separated into subgroups based on AL as follows: normal (22.0 ≤ AL < 26.0 mm) and long (AL ≥ 26.0 mm). Outcomes included the mean error (ME), the mean absolute error (MAE), the median absolute error (MedAE), and the proportion of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 diopters (D) of the prediction error. Results: A total of 191 eyes of 191 patients were included: 162 eyes of 162 patients in the normal AL group and 29 eyes of 29 patients in the long AL group. The EVO formula was the most accurate for the normal AL group, which had the lowest MAE and MedAE. The MAE and MedAE of EVO were the lowest in the long AL group; EVO showed the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.75, and 1.00 D compared with other formulas. Conclusions: When using an ARGOS, the EVO formula had the lowest MAE and the highest proportion of eyes within ±1.00 D of the predicted target in both the normal and high myopia groups.