OBJECTIVES: To investigate home visiting for mothers and young infants, age birth-to-12 months, program goals, interventions used, home visitor characteristics and qualifications, and the program content and outcomes. METHODS: Electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Sagepub were used. Eleven studies investi- gating home visiting from 2011-to-2016 were included. Studies were included if they: 1) were a primary study; 2) commenced during the antepartum or early postpartum period for mothers and finished before or when the infant was 12 months old; 3) and provided a description of home visiting program in terms of goal, type of home visitor, content, length, and outcomes. Data extraction included goals, activities, home visitor characteristics and qualifications, and outcomes. A descriptive approach was used to synthesize data. RESULTS: Home visiting impacted birth preparedness, newborn care practices, breastfeeding practices, and home environment necessary for maternal wellness and child health and development. CONCLUSION Home visits in developed and underdeveloped countries create positive outcomes for mothers and infants. It is important to understand the process in order to make it more effective.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the refractive absolute error when axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and keratometry (K) are sourced from different measuring devices (IOL Master vs a combination of automated keratometer and A-scan) and inputted into the Barrett Universal II or SRK/T formula.

This was a retrospective study. Medical charts of eyes that underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification with in-the-bag implantation of Envista or multifocal FineVision IOL were reviewed. The results of manifest refraction at 1 month after surgery were collected. The predicted refraction corresponding to the IOL power implanted was collected from 4 IOL sheets: using the SRK/T with AL, ACD, and K from IOL Master (Group A); SRK/T formula with AL and ACD from A-scan and K from the automated keratometer (Group B); Barrett formula with AL, ACD and K from IOL Master (Group C); and Barrett formula using with AL, ACD from A-scan and K from automated keratometer. For each group, the absolute error, prediction error, and variances of prediction error were computed.

A total of 132 eyes were included in the study: 56 in the monofocal group and 76 in the multifocal group. The means of manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) were 0.06 ± 0.38 D and –0.08 ± 0.31 D in the monofocal and multifocal groups, respectively. When AL and K were obtained from various sources and entered into the Barrett formula, the mean absolute error difference in both the monofocal (p = 0.70) and multifocal (p = 0.10) groups did not reach statistical significance. If the SRK/T formula was used, similar outcomes were observed (monofocal p = 0.97; multifocal p = 0.37). When compared to A-scan groups, the prediction error variances are significantly smaller in the groups that used the IOL Master as their data source. Among the four groups, the Barrett group using IOL Master as the data source showed the lowest overall variation of prediction error (monofocal F = 0.04; multifocal F = 0.03).

Though the refractive outcomes may not be statistically different, using the IOL Master as the source of AL and K makes the refractive outcomes more consistent and predictable. Combining the AL and K from the IOL Master with the Barrett Universal II formula further increases the predictability of refractive outcomes.

Objective: To compare the visual performance and patient-reported outcomes of three types of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOL) with different asphericities. Methods: This cross-sectional, comparative study comprised of 62 pseudophakic eyes divided into three groups corresponding to the IOL that they were previously implanted with (Tecnis ZCB00 negative aspheric IOL, EnVista MX60 neutral aspheric IOL and Akreos Adapt spheric IOL). Mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), best-corrected far visual acuity (BCVA), spherical aberration (SA), contrast sensitivity (SC), halo and starburst, and responses to a qualitative questionnaire (NEI-RQL) were measured. Results: There was no significant difference in MRSE (P=0.74) and BCVA (P=0.52) among the three groups. There was a statistically significant difference (P=0.00) in mean internal (lens) SA, measured through a 5mm pupil, among Tecnis (-0.150 μm), EnVista (+0.022 μm) and Akreos Adapt (+0.094 μm). Compared to the Akreos Adapt, the Tecnis and EnVista groups had significantly better CS at 6 CPD and 12 CPD under mesopic testing without glare (P= 0.01) and at 6 CPD mesopic testing with glare (P=0.04). Halo scores were insignificant among the three groups. However, starburst scores were significantly worse in the Akreos Adapt IOL than the Tecnis and EnVista (P=0.01). There was no difference in questionnaire responses among the three groups. Conclusion The negative aspheric and neutral aspheric lenses showed significantly lower SA resulting in better CS in mesopic conditions and better starburst scores. MRSE, BCVA and subjective satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of the type of monofocal intraocular lens
Contrast Sensitivity

OBJECTIVE: To compare the visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes of eyes implanted with one of 3 trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, comparative, non-interventional study wherein subjects implanted with FineVision Micro F, AT LISA tri 839MP or AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal IOL after phacoemulsification were recruited. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and corrected visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate and near vision, contrast sensitivity, modulated transfer function (MTF) values and questionnaire answers were compared among the 3 groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Fifty-seven (57) eyes were included in the study: 21 eyes with FineVision (group A), 21 eyes with LISA tri (group B), and 15 eyes with PanOptix IOL (group C). The post-operative mean manifest spherical equivalent was -0.01D, -0.07D, and 0.05D, respectively (p=0.083). Uncorrected distance VA and best-corrected distance VA were similar among the groups. Groups A and C had better uncorrected and corrected intermediate VA at 80 cm and at 60 cm compared to group B. Group A had significantly better uncorrected near visual acuity than groups B and C (p=0.032). Mesopic contrast sensitivity testing showed group C had higher contrast sensitivities without glare in at the spatial frequency of 6 CPD (p=0.038) and with glare at 3 CPD (p=0.039) and at 12 CPD (p=0.009). MTF average height analysis showed that the group A had significantly superior resolution in far targets compared to groups B and C (p=0.001). At near targets, groups A and C had better resolutions compared to group B (p=0.017). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction for far, intermediate and near VA among the groups. CONCLUSION: Eyes implanted with any of the 3 trifocal IOL designs achieved excellent uncorrected and bestcorrected distance, intermediate and near vision. FineVision and PanOptix provided significantly better intermediate vision than LISA tri at both 80 cm and 60 cm testing distance. FineVision had better near visual outcomes than PanOptix and LISA tri. Patient satisfaction was high in all 3 trifocal IOLS
Lenses, Intraocular ; Vision, Ocular