Background: A new commercially available optical low coherence reflectometry device (Lenstar, Haag-Streit or Allegro Biograph, Wavelight) provides high-resolution non-contact measurements of ocular biometry. The study evaluates the validity and repeatability of these measurements compared with current clinical instrumentation. Method: Measurements were taken with the LenStar and IOLMaster on 112 patients aged 41–96 years listed for cataract surgery. A subgroup of 21 patients also had A-scan applanation ultrasonography (OcuScan) performed. Intersession repeatability of the LenStar measurements was assessed on 32 patients Results: LenStar measurements of white-to-white were similar to the IOLMaster (average difference 0.06 (SD 0.03) D; p = 0.305); corneal curvature measurements were similar to the IOLMaster (average difference −0.04 (0.20) D; p = 0.240); anterior chamber depth measurements were significantly longer than the IOLMaster (by 0.10 (0.40) mm) and ultrasound (by 0.32 (0.62) mm; p<0.001); crystalline lens thickness measurements were similar to ultrasound (difference 0.16 (0.83) mm, p = 0.382); axial length measurements were significantly longer than the IOLMaster (by 0.01 (0.02) mm) but shorter than ultrasound (by 0.14 (0.15) mm; p<0.001). The LensStar was unable to take measurements due to dense media opacities in a similar number of patients to the IOLMaster (9–10%). The LenStar biometric measurements were found to be highly repeatable (variability ⩽2% of average value). Conclusions: Although there were some statistical differences between ocular biometry measurements between the LenStar and current clinical instruments, they were not clinically significant. LenStar measurements were highly repeatable and the instrument easy to use.

To develop a standardized questionnaire of near visual function and satisfaction to complement visual function evaluations of presbyopic corrections. Eye Clinic, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Midland Eye Institute and Solihull Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom. Questionnaire development. A preliminary 26-item questionnaire of previously used near visual function items was completed by patients with monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), multifocal IOLs, accommodating IOLs, multifocal contact lenses, or varifocal spectacles. Rasch analysis was used for item reduction, after which internal and test-retest reliabilities were determined. Construct validity was determined by correlating the resulting Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) scores with near visual acuity and critical print size (CPS), which was measured using the Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test chart. Discrimination ability was assessed through receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. One hundred fifty patients completed the questionnaire. Item reduction resulted in a 10-item NAVQ with excellent separation (2.92), internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.95), and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72). Correlations of questionnaire scores with near visual acuity (r = 0.32) and CPS (r = 0.27) provided evidence of validity, and discrimination ability was excellent (area under ROC curve = 0.91). Results show the NAVQ is a reliable, valid instrument that can be incorporated into the evaluation of presbyopic corrections.

To compare corneal thickness measurements using Orbscan II (OII) and ultrasonic (US) pachymetry in normal and in keratoconic eyes. Eye Department, Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured by means of OII and US pachymetry in 1 eye of 72 normal subjects and 36 keratoconus patients. The apical corneal thickness (ACT) in keratoconus patients was also evaluated using each method. The mean of the difference, standard deviation (SD), and 95% limits of agreement (LoA = mean +/- 2 SD), with and without applying the default linear correction factor (LCF), were determined for each sample. The Student t test was used to identify significant differences between methods, and the correlation between methods was determined using the Pearson bivariate correlation. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to confirm that the results of the 2 instruments were clinically comparable. In normal eyes, the mean difference (+/- 95% LoA) in CCT was 1.04 microm +/- 68.52 (SD) (P>.05; r = 0.71) when the LCF was used and 46.73 +/- 75.40 microm (P =.0001; r = 0.71) without the LCF. In keratoconus patients, the mean difference (+/- 95% LoA) in CCT between methods was 42.46 +/- 66.56 microm (P<.0001: r = 0.85) with the LCF, and 2.51 +/- 73.00 microm (P>.05: r = 0.85) without the LCF. The mean difference (+/- 95% LoA) in ACT for this group was 49.24 +/- 60.88 microm (P<.0001: r = 0.89) with the LCF and 12.71 +/- 68.14 microm (P =.0077; r = 0.89) when the LCF was not used. This study suggests that OII and US pachymetry provide similar readings for CCT in normal subjects when an LCF is used. In keratoconus patients, OII provides a valid clinical tool for the noninvasive assessment of CCT when the LCF is not applied.

Purpose.: To determine the most appropriate analysis technique for the differentiation of multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) designs by using defocus curve assessment of visual capability. Methods.: Four groups of 15 subjects were implanted bilaterally with either monofocal intraocular lenses, refractive MIOLs, diffractive MIOLs, or a combination of refractive and diffractive MIOLs. Defocus curves between −5.0 D and +1.5 D were evaluated by using an absolute and relative depth-of-focus method, the direct comparison method, and a new “area-of-focus” metric. The results were correlated with a subjective perception of near and intermediate vision. Results.: Neither depth-of-focus method of analysis was sensitive enough to differentiate between MIOL groups (P > 0.05). The direct comparison method indicated that the refractive MIOL group performed better at +1.00 diopter (D), −1.00 D, and −1.50 D and worse at −3.00 D, −3.50 D, −4.00 D, and −5.00 D than did the diffractive MIOL group (P < 0.05). The area-of-focus intermediate zone was greater with the refractive than with the diffractive MIOL group (P = 0.005) and the near zone was better with the diffractive (P = 0.020) and “mix and match” (P = 0.039) groups than with the refractive MIOL group. The subjective perception of intermediate and near vision agreed best with the area-of-focus metric for the intermediate (r _s = 0.408, P = 0.010) and near zone (r _s = 0.484, P < 0.001). Conclusions.: Conventional depth-of-focus metrics provide a single value to quantify the useful range of vision; however, they fail to provide sufficient detail to differentiate between MIOL designs. The direct comparison method provides a large amount of information, although the results can be complex to interpret. The proposed area-of-focus metric provides a simple, but differentiating method of evaluating MIOL defocus curves.