OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare ectasia and pseudoectasia in post-myopic LASIK patients presenting with corneal topographic changes indicative of ectasia using the Ectasia Risk Factor Score System (ERFSS).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective comparative case series of a consecutive chart review of cases in 18 years who underwent bilateral myopic-LASIK and showed topographic changes indicative of ectasia.

RESULTS

Four patients were included. Group 1: pseudoectasia eyes, consisting of two patients with bilateral pseudoectasia, and Group 2: ectasia eyes, consisting of two patients with unilateral ectasia. The clinical course of the cases was discussed and compared based on the ERFSS parameters: topography pattern, residual stromal bed thickness, age, preop thinnest cornea, and pre-operative spherical equivalent (SE) manifest refraction (MR). Group 1 scored zero to low risk for developing ectasia while Group 2-eyes with ectasia scored moderate risk. The predictive value of the ERFSS was 1 in this study.

CONCLUSION

The ERFSS is a good measure in deciding the suited treatment plan for patient undergoing refractive procedure. Knowing the clinical course of ectasia and pseudoectasia is helpful in the therapeutic approach since pseudoectasia is reversible when identified and managed early as seen in this study.

Dilatation, Pathologic ; Eye

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

Human ; Anterior Chamber ; Cataract

Objectives: To evaluate and compare ectasia and pseudoectasia in post-myopic LASIK patients presenting with corneal topographic changes indicative of ectasia using the Ectasia Risk Factor Score System (ERFSS). Methods: Single-center retrospective comparative case series of a consecutive chart review of cases in 18 years who underwent bilateral myopic-LASIK and showed topographic changes indicative of ectasia. Results: Four patients were included. Group 1: pseudoectasia eyes, consisting of two patients with bilateral pseudoectasia, and Group 2: ectasia eyes, consisting of two patients with unilateral ectasia. The clinical course of the cases was discussed and compared based on the ERFSS parameters: topography pattern, residual stromal bed thickness, age, preop thinnest cornea, and pre-operative spherical equivalent (SE) manifest refraction (MR). Group 1 scored zero to low risk for developing ectasia while Group 2-eyes with ectasia scored moderate risk. The predictive value of the ERFSS was 1 in this study. Conclusion The ERFSS is a good measure in deciding the suited treatment plan for patient undergoing refractive procedure. Knowing the clinical course of ectasia and pseudoectasia is helpful in the therapeutic approach since pseudoectasia is reversible when identified and managed early as seen in this study.
Dilatation, Pathologic

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 identify the glaucoma clinical practice patterns among the members of the Philippine Glaucoma Society (PGS) from 2015 to 2016 using an online survey. METHODS: An online link was sent to each consenting PGS member which directed them to two poll sites. These sites asked questions about demographics and their preferred clinical practice patterns. Frequency and percent distributions were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: There was a high response rate from PGS members at 97% (42 out of 43 members). More than half of respondents (51%, n=22) defined glaucoma as glaucomatous optic neuropathy with an evident visual field loss. IOP was routinely measured by 90% (n=38) of the respondents with majority preferring to use the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) (98%, n=41). Gonioscopy was done on all new patients by all PGS members but only 62% did regular gonioscopy on follow-up consultations. Most of the respondents relied on the 90D lens (88%) to assess the optic nerve. Visual field examination (VFE) was routinely requested by all respondents. Pachymetry and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) were used sparingly at only 43% and 12% respectively. Appositional angle closure was addressed by performing laser iridotomy with majority of the respondents preferring a site that is covered by the upper eyelid (57%). Prostaglandin analogues were the top choice as first-line monotherapy for eyes with open-angle glaucoma. Majority of the respondents (55%) opted to do laser trabeculoplasty (LTP) as an adjunct to medical therapy. Mitomycin-C was the preferred intraoperative antimetabolite for trabeculectomy by 98% (n=41). Ahmed (71%, n=30) was the more favored glaucoma drainage device (GDD) by our respondents over Baerveldt (19%, n=8). CONCLUSION: This survey showed majority of the glaucoma practices of PGS members appear to adhere to the current clinical practice guidelines.
Philippines ; Glaucoma ; Tetrahymenina ; Surveys and Questionnaires

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

OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with glaucoma managed at private and government institutions in the Philippines between 2009 and 2014.

METHODS: A research team from two private and two government institutions in the Philippines reviewed the case records of 1246 patients seen who met the following criteria: intraocular pressure of >21 mmHg, optic nerve and nerve fiber layer abnormalities, and visual field defects. For bilateral cases, we selected the eye with worse glaucoma parameters.

RESULTS: There were 600 and 646 patients in the private and government groups (mean age at presentation, 60.51 and 55.88 years), respectively, with the majority being Filipino (91%). Patients with visual acuity (VA) of 20/20 to 20/40 were more frequently observed in private centers (58.7% vs. 41.3%), while a VA worse than counting fingers was more frequently observed in government centers (66.1% vs. 33.9%). Within-group analysis showed that primary angle-closure glaucoma was the most frequent glaucoma subtype in both private (27.3%) and government institutions (37.8%). In between-group analysis showed the following to be more common in private than government centers: primary open-angle glaucoma (61.3% vs. 38.7%), normal-tension glaucoma (63.9% vs. 36.1%), ocular hypertension (92.3% vs. 7.7%), and glaucoma suspects (80.4% vs. 19.6%) while government institutions registered a larger number of primary angle-closure glaucoma (59.8% vs. 40.2%) and secondary glaucoma (70.3% vs. 29.7%) cases. Medical treatment using a single drug and multiple drugs was employed for 245 (23%) and 825 (77%) patients, respectively. Within-group analysis showed that laser iridotomy and trabeculectomy were the most commonly performed laser and surgical procedures in both institution types.

CONCLUSION: There is a contrasting profile of glaucoma between clinical institutions in the Philippines with openangle glaucoma being more predominant in private centers while closed-angle glaucoma and secondary glaucoma being more frequent in government centers. Our findings may provide important preliminary information that can aid future health studies or training programs.

Human ; Glaucoma ; Patients

OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic and clinical profile of patients who underwent refractive surgery screening.

METHODS: Medical records of patients who sought consult for refractive surgery from January 2010 to December 2014 at a refractive center were reviewed and analyzed. The preoperative clinical conditions, optical characteristics of myopes and hyperopes, refractive screening tests, and causes for disqualification were determined.

RESULTS: A total of 1215 patients who sought consult for refractive surgery had a mean age of 36.45 ± 11.60 years. Seven hundred ten (58.44%) were females and 860 (70.78%) were Filipinos. Nine hundred eighty eight (81%) were myopes. The mean manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) for myopic patients was -4.41D±2.98 with mean uncorrected distance vision (UCDVA) of 20/400 (logMAR 1.26) and mean best-corrected distance vision (BCDVA) of 20/20 (logMAR 0.02). For hyperopic patients, the mean MRSE was +1.33D±3.76 with mean UCDVA of 20/40 (logMAR 0.33) and mean BCDVA of 20/20 (logMAR 0.001). Reasons for disqualification from undergoing a refractive procedure included thin cornea (5.27%), irregular corneal topography (2.39%), steep cornea (0.78%), high refractive errors (0.41%), optic nerve (0.41%), and retina (0.25%) pathologies.

CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent screening for refractive surgery were young, mostly female, with myopic refractive errors. LASIK remained the most popular refractive surgery procedure. 

Human ; Male ; Female ; Adult ; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ ; Corneal Topography ; Hyperopia ; Myopia ; Refractive Errors ; Optic Nerve ; Retina ; Cornea ;

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the visual and refractive outcomes of LASIK, PRK, phakic IOL, and Supracor as treatment for errors of refraction, including presbyopia, performed at a private eye center.

METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center, single-surgeon study that reviewed the surgical outcomes of patients who underwent LASIK, PRK, phakic IOL, and Supracor from January 2010 to December 2014. Main outcome measures were postoperative uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (for Supracor), and mean manifest-refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) of patients who had at least 1 month follow up. Complications and enhancements were analyzed independently.

RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 1,366 eyes of 771 patients. LASIK was the most commonly performed procedure (68%), followed by PRK (18.3%), Supracor (10.2%), and phakic IOL (3.7%). The postoperative mean MRSE at 1 month for LASIK, PRK, and phakic IOL were -0.08 ± 0.36, +0.06 ± 0.52 and -0.11 ± 0.44, respectively. The mean postoperative logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 1 month for LASIK, PRK, and phakic IOL were 0.02 ± 0.10, 0.07 ± 0.12, 0.001 ± 0.09, respectively. In the Supracor group, the mean preoperative and postoperative spherical equivalent were +1.12 ± 0.8 and -0.76 ± 0.62, respectively. The mean postoperative logMAR UDVA and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) for Supracor were 0.24 ± 0.19 and 0.02 ± 0.08, respectively. The most common postoperative complication was symptomatic dry eye (13%). Regression and off-target outcomes occurred in 24 (1.8%) and 13 eyes (1%), respectively. Overall enhancement rate was 2%.

CONCLUSION: LASIK remained to be the most common refractive procedure, with femtosecond laser-created flap becoming the norm. Refractive and visual outcomes showed good efficacy with all the refractive procedures. Complication and enhancement rates were low.

Human ; Adult ; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ ; Presbyopia ; Visual Acuity ; Eye ; Surgeons ; Postoperative Complications ; Outcome Assessment (health Care)

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of life using the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life (NEI-RQL) instrument in 40-60 year-old patients with reading glasses and presbyopic LASIK correction and in 60-80 year-old patients with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS: Patients aged 40-80 years old with reading glasses (group 1a) or presbyopic LASIK treatment (group 1b) and bilateral pseudophakia with monofocal (group 2a) or multifocal IOLs (group 2b) were recruited. All patients answered the NEI-RQL questionnaire. The responses in the self-administered questionnaires were collated, analyzed, and compared between the subgroups.

RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients (median age 60 years, range 41-80 years) completed the NEI-RQL questionnaire. Subjects (age 41-59 years) who underwent presbyopic LASIK correction had a higher mean NEI-RQL (p=0.19) and higher subscale score for satisfaction (p=0.42) than those wearing reading glasses. However, the differences were not satistically significant.

CONCLUSION: Presbyopic LASIK improved uncorrected near visual acuity and provided spectacle independence in presbyopes; however, patient satisfaction was similar to those who with reading glasses. Multifocal IOLs significantly improved uncorrected near visual acuity and spectacle independence in pseudophakic patients with high patient satisfaction.

Human ; Male ; Female ; Aged ; Middle Aged ; Adult ; Eyeglasses ; Lenses, Intraocular ; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ ; Pseudophakia ; Refractive Errors ; Presbyopia ; Quality Of Life