Purpose: To check if optical biometry can detect eventual corneal power (Km) and axial length (AL) cataract surgery-related changes that could influence the refractive outcome. Methods: Patients scheduled for sequential bilateral cataract surgery between January and September 2017 were included in the present study. One hundred ninety-six eyes of 98 patients (48 males) were selected. Before surgery of the first eye, patients underwent a complete ophthalmic examination, including IOLMaster biometry; the same evaluations were repeated in both eyes the day before the fellow eye cataract surgery, performed at least 2 months after the first one. The differences in Km and AL in the first operated eyes were evaluated, and the fellow eyes were used as controls. Results: Km differences in the operated eyes ranged from −1.97 to +0.98 diopter (D) (mean = −0.02 ± 0.36 D) (P = 0.89); in the nonoperated eyes they ranged from −0.6 to +0.7 D (mean = 0 ± 0.20 D) (P = 0.91). The AL differences (pseudophakic option) in the operated eyes ranged from −0.35 to +0.15 mm (mean = −0.10 ± 0.08 mm) (P < 0.001); with the aphakic option they ranged from −0.24 to + 0.26 mm (mean = 0.01 ± 0.08 mm) (P= 0.38). In the nonoperated eyes, the AL differences ranged from −0.04 to +0.06 mm (mean= 0 ± 0.02 mm) (P = 0.02). Conclusions: The modern phaco-technique seems not to induce changes in Km and AL, supporting the hypothesis that the differences in AL are due to an incorrect estimation in pseudophakic eyes. Translational Relevance: The results of our study may improve the AL measurements in pseudophakic eyes.

The purpose of our study is to see how beneficial is tea tree oil (TTO) for treating chronic blepharitis topically, with a focus on the Demodex mite. To discover all possibly relevant published papers, an accurate Pubmed database search analysis of the current literature was undertaken from 2012 to December 2021. Fourteen papers dealing with the use of TTO to treat chronic blepharitis have been found. The effectiveness of TTO treatment was tested in vitro by 4 authors and in vivo by 10 authors. All studied confirmed efficacy of TTO treatment, even cyclic, on Demodex mite blepharitis. TTO can be used for lid scrubs, facial cleanser, eyelid patch, eyelid gel, eyelash shampoo or, more commonly, as TTO impregnated eyelid wipes. The scientific evidence of TTO for chronic blepharitis treatment gives a lot of confidence for the progress that this treatment may have in the future clinical practice.

Among working-age people, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema are currently considered the main causes of blindness. Nowadays, intravitreal injections are widely acknowledged as a significant milestone in ophthalmology, especially for the treatment of several retinal diseases, including diabetic macular edema. In particular, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are typically the first line of treatment; however, monthly injections are required, at least, during the loading dosage. Notably, an intravitreal 0.7 mg dexamethasone (DEX) implant (Ozurdex^®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a legitimate substitute treatment for diabetic eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF treatment. In fact, clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal DEX implant in treating such conditions over a period of three to six months. For this reason, wisely selecting diabetic patients might be crucial to decreasing the load of injections in clinics and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available scientific literature to highlight the benefits, efficacy, and clinical criteria for choosing whether to switch from intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy to an intravitreal DEX implant in diabetic macular edema.

Nowadays, retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is the second most prevalent cause of vision loss associated with retinal vascular disease. Intravitreal injections are currently known as a major advancement in ophthalmology, particularly in the treatment of RVO and other retinal disorders. Particularly, the first line of therapy is usually anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs. Notably, for RVO eyes that have not responded to anti-VEGF therapy, an intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant 0.7 mg (Ozurdex^®, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) is considered a suitable therapeutical substitute. Actually, investigations carried out in the real world and clinical trials have shown the safety and the efficacy of intravitreal DEX implants for treating this retinal disease. For this reason, choosing patients carefully may thus be essential to reduce the number of injections that clinics and hospitals have to do to manage RVO and its complications. The primary aim of this review is to summarize the pathophysiology of this retinal vascular disease, as well as the clinical and ocular imaging features that may support a switch from prior anti-VEGF treatment to intravitreal DEX implant, to provide the RVO patients with the best possible treatment to ensure maximum visual recovery.

Objective: To compare corneal thickness (CT) measurements using the CEM-530 (Nidal, Gamagori, Japan) and Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Methods: The CT of 209 healthy subjects (209 right eyes) aged 24 to 89 years (71.35 ± 10.72 years) was measured at the corneal apex (CA), pupil center (PC), and thinnest point (TP) with the Pentacam HR and at the corneal center with the CEM-530 in random order at the same time of day. Results: A good correlation but statistically significant difference was found between the CEM-530 and Pentacam HR measurements at the CA (6.10 ± 8.12 µm, R² = 0.8947), PC (7.46 ± 8.57 µm, R² = 0.8826), and TP (12.44 ± 10.04 µm, R² = 0.8392). Comparison of the two devices produced the following regression formulas: y = 0.8859x + 57.644 for the CA, y = 0.8852x +56.657 for the PC, and y = 0.8557x + 68.148 for the TP, where x is the CT obtained with the CEM-530 and y is that obtained with the Pentacam HR. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the CEM-530 produces a thicker corneal measurement than the Pentacam HR. The herein-proposed correcting factors are needed to reliably compare these devices.