Purpose: To compare the postoperative visual acuity curves following 3 pseudophakic presbyopic correction techniques. Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece. Design: Prospective, randomized, comparative trial. Methods: For this study, patients with stage 2 Lens Opacities Classification System III cataract were divided into 3 study groups: (1) premium monovision group, including patients who received the Panoptix intraocular lens (IOL) in the recessive eye and Vivity IOL in the dominant one; (2) bilateral trifocal group, including those who received bilaterally the Panoptix IOL; and (3) bilateral xEDOF group, including patients who received bilaterally the Vivity IOL. Postoperative bilateral uncorrected distance visual acuity was measured at 25.5, 28, 33, 40, 50, 66, 100, 200, and 300 cm distances. Spline curve fitting was attempted, and areas of the curves (AOCs) and curvature k were calculated. All patients responded to the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ-25). Results: 90 patients were equally divided into the 3 groups. Premium monovision and bilateral trifocal implantations delivered similar visual acuity (all AOC P > .05); however, the trifocal patients suffered from drops in vision acuity in certain distance ranges as expressed by negative curvature values. Bilateral xEDOF patients demonstrated worse near vision acuity (P < .05). Premium monovision patients reported better scores in NEI-VFQ 25 (P = .03) and in the near activities (P = .02) and distant activities (P = .04) subscales. Conclusions: All surgical options provided impressive outcomes. Premium monovision appeared to deliver the best results.

Purpose: Contemporary monovision techniques use premium intraocular lenses (IOLs), either in both eyes or at least in the non-dominant one. Primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of premium monovision (implantation of the trifocal diffractive Panoptix IOL in the non-dominant eye and the bifocal hybrid refractive-diffractive Restor IOL in the dominant eye), against bilateral myopic monovision (implantation of the monofocal SN60WF IOL targeting − 0.50 D in the dominant eye and − 1.25 D myopia in the non-dominant one), hybrid monovision (implantation of Panoptix in the non-dominant eye and SN60WF in the dominant eye) and bilateral trifocal implantation (with bilateral Panoptix implantation). Methods: This is a prospective, comparative, clinic-based trial. Cataract patients populated four study groups: Monovision Group (MoG), Multifocal Lens Group (MfG), Hybrid Monovision Group (HmG) and Premium Monovision Group (PmG). Binocular Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity (UDVA), Uncorrected Reading Acuity and Critical Print Size at 60cm (UIRA, UICPS) and at 40cm (UNRA, UNCPS), contrast sensitivity, vision-related functional impairment, dysphotopsia symptoms and spectacle dependence were evaluated 6 months following the operation of the second eye. A mathematical model was constructed, which calculated the relative efficacy of each surgical intervention. Results: A total of 120 participants were recruited and populated equally the study groups. Significant improvement of preoperative UDVA was observed in all study groups. No significant differences could be detected in postoperative UDVA and UIRA (p = 0.24) among study groups, while significant differences were noticed in UICPS (p = 0.04), UNRA (p = 0.02) and UNCPS (p = 0.01). Dysphotopic phenomena (glare and shadows) were significantly more in the MfG arm followed by the PmG group (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively), while perceived difficulty and spectacle independence rates were significantly better in PmG group. PmG presented the best overall relative efficacy. Conclusion: All surgical techniques present satisfactory outcomes. Premium monovision seems to demonstrate the best outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04618380. Registered 05 November 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04618380.

Recent artificial tear preparations have provided 0.2% concentration of sodium hyaluronate. However, no published data exist on their potential superiority against 0.1% in alleviating dry-eye-disease symptoms in cataract extraction surgery. A total of 180 patients that underwent cataract extraction surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups according to their postoperative regime: Study group (SG) received fixed combination of tobramycin and dexamethasone (FCTD) quid for 3 weeks, and additionally 0.2% sodium hyaluronate provided in the COMOD® device quid for 6 weeks. Control group (CG) received fixed combination of tobramycin and dexamethasone (FCTD) quid for 3 weeks, and additionally 0.1% sodium hyaluronate provided in the COMOD® device quid for 6 weeks. The following indexes were evaluated at 3 postoperative checkpoints: 1) Surface discomfort index (SDI) which was derived by four direct 10-scale Likert-type questions that were addressed to the patient and pertained to: a) foreign body sensation (FBS), b) blinking discomfort (BD), c) stinging sensation (SS), d) tearing sensation (TS), 2) Tear break-up time (TBUT), 3) Schirmer’s test, 4) Central corneal thickness (CCT), and 4) Central Corneal Sensitivity (CCS). Both groups showed reduced CCS values at all postoperative examination points; however, SG participants had significantly better CCS (all p < 0.05). SG had better TBUT than CG at the 3rd (p = 0.03) and 6th examination points (p = 0.04). Moreover, SG had better SDI scores at the 3rd (SDI = 9.26 ± 0.55) and 6th weeks (SDI = 9.47 ± 0.48) vs. CG participants (p = 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). The increased 0.2% sodium hyaluronate concentration in the artificial tears provided in the COMOD® device seems to address dry-eye-disease symptoms better in patients who underwent phacoemulsification surgery than the 0.1% concentration. Identifier: NCT03705949 Oct 15, 2018, retrospectively registered.

Purpose: To validate the Democritus Digital Acuity and Reading Test (DDART) as a distance VA (dVA) test against a series of prevalent conventional distance vision charts. Setting: Ophthalmology Department, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece; Ophthalmology Department, AHEPA University Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece; and Ophthalmica Institute of Ophthalmology & Microsurgery, Thessaloniki, Greece. Design: Prospective multicenter validation study. Methods: The distance best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (dBSCVA) was compared in normal (NVG) and low (LVG) vision participants against 4 prevalent conventional distance vision charts (ETDRS, Snellen, Landolt C, and Tumbling E) by a predefined 2.5-symbol noninferiority margin and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). DDART's test–retest (TRT) reliability was assessed with ICCs. Results: 534 participants (471 and 63 with normal and low vision, respectively) were included in the study. The mean difference between dBSCVA measured with DDART and conventional charts ranged between −0.84 and +0.85 symbols, without exceeding the 2.5-symbol noninferiority margin. ICCs indicated an excellent level of agreement for all patient groups (from 0.848 to 0.985). TRT reliability indicated differences below 1 symbol both for the NVG and LVG, with ICCs ranging between 0.912 and 0.964 for the 4 DDARTs. Conclusions: DDART was a valid web-based dVA test that provided reliable measurements in clinical and telemedical settings, both for normal and low vision patients.

Purpose: To examine the impact of light intensity and temperature on reading performance following bilateral pseudophakic multifocal presbyopic correction. Patients and methods: This is a prospective clinic-based trial conducted at the Department of Ophthalmology in the University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Greece. Three groups of patients were formed (G1: patients with bilateral bifocal implantation, G2: patients with bilateral trifocal implantation, and control group: patients with bilateral pseudophakic monofocal implantation). Reading ability was quantified with the Greek version of MNREAD chart with minimal reading speed at 80 words/min for the following light intensities (25, 50, and 75 Foot-Candles [FC]) and temperatures (3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 K). Preferred light conditions for reading were assessed, as well. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03226561. Results: Control group demonstrated significantly lower reading ability at all light combinations with maximal ability at 75 FC and 6,000 K (0.58±0.18 logMAR). Bifocal group presented a light-dependent reading ability that ranged from 0.45±0.08 logMAR (25 FC and 3,000 K) to 0.40±0.11 logMAR (75 FC and 4,000 or 6,000 K). Trifocal participants presented the best reading ability that was light intensity-independent; however, their performance was reduced at 6,000 K. G1 and G2 preferred primarily intermediate light temperature, while control participants preferred cold light temperature. Conclusion: Multifocal pseudophakic corrections improve reading ability; however, they present variable efficacy according to the light conditions.

(1) Background: While smartphones are among the primary devices used in telemedical applications, smart TV healthcare apps are not prevalent despite smart TVs’ penetrance in home settings. The present study’s objective was to develop and validate the first smart TV-based visual acuity (VA) test (Democritus Digital Visual Acuity Test (DDiVAT)) that allows a reliable VA self-assessment. (2) Methods: This is a prospective validation study. DDiVAT introduces several advanced features for reliable VA self-testing; among them: automatic calibration, voice recognition, voice guidance, automatic calculation of VA indexes, and a smart TV-based messaging system. Normal and low vision participants were included in the validation. DDiVAT VA results (VA_DDiVAT) were compared against the ones from: (a) the gold-standard conventional ETDRS (VA_ETDRS), and, (b) an independent ophthalmologist who monitored the self-examination testing (VA_RES). Comparisons were performed by noninferiority test (set at 2.5-letters) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). DDiVAT’s test-retest reliability was assessed within a 15-day time-window. (3) Results: A total of 300 participants (185 and 115 with normal and low vision, respectively) responded to ETDRS and DDiVAT. Mean difference in letters was −0.05 for VA_ETDRS–VA_RES, 0.62 for VA_RES–VA_DDiVAT, and 0.67 for VA_ETDRS–VA_DDiVAT, significantly lower than the 2.5 letter noninferiority margin. ICCs indicated an excellent level of agreement, collectively and for each group (0.922-0.996). All displayed letters in DDiVAT presented a similar difficulty. The overall accuracy of the voice recognition service was 96.01%. ICC for VA_DDiVAT test-retest was 0.957. (4) Conclusions: The proposed DDiVAT presented non-significant VA differences with the ETDRS, suggesting that it can be used for accurate VA self-assessment in telemedical settings, both for normal and low-vision patients.