ABSTRACT
@#Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the short-term efficacy of two comparable formulation of dual-polymer artificial tears: Systane Hydration preservative (SH) and non-preservative (SHUD) in 60 minutes observation period compared to normal saline. Methods: Fifty participants involved in this prospective, double-masked randomised study. Viscosity and pH of artificial tears were evaluated using rheometer and digital pH-meter prior to tear film assessment. Tear break-up time (TBUT) and tear meniscus height (TMH) were measured at baseline, 5, 15 and 60 minutes after instillation. Tear ferning pattern (TFP) were compared between baseline and 60 minutes after instillation. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Independent T-test were used to evaluate the effects of SH and SHUD after instillation and comparison between each specific time-interval respectively. P-value of 0.05 was set as the level of significance. Results: The viscosity of SH and SHUD was 26.7cP and 32.73cP re-spectively with pH of 7.85 (SH) and 7.74 (SHUD). Both artificial tears showed significant increment in TBUT between baseline and 15 minutes (SH:5.82±1.063, p=0.01; SHUD:6.02±0.979, p<0.001), and 60 minutes (SH:6.22±0.616, p<0.001; SHUD:6.34±0.658, p<0.001). SHUD demonstrated significant increment in TMH at every measurement taken (0.1996±0.02449, p<0.001 at 5min, 0.2038±0.02276, p<0.001 at 15min and 0.2068±0.02094, p<0.001 at 60min). Likewise, in SH group, significant increment in TMH at 15 minutes (0.1994±0.02325, p<0.001) and 60 minutes (0.2012±0.02379, p<0.001) were noted. Both groups revealed improvement in TFP (both, p<0.001) at 60 minutes. No significant im-provement was noted in control group. Conclusion: Improvement in TMH was prominently faster in SHUD than SH, although both TBUT and TFP revealed comparable tears quality between both artificial tears.
ABSTRACT
@#Introduction: Precise pupillometry is crucial to determine ablation optical zone (OZ) size selection in LASIK. Significant difference in the selection induces unwanted postoperative night visual disturbance. Placido-disc topographer and Hartmann-Shack aberrometer are commonly used in LASIK preoperative assessment. However, little is known on the precision and agreement of these devices in pupillometry. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) and inter-device agreement of a Placido-disc topographer and Hartmann-Shack aberrometer in measuring mesopic pupil size in pre-LASIK patients. Methods: Mesopic pupillometry on 38 pre-LASIK patients were performed using both devices by two masked operators, on two separate sessions. Intra-session repeatability, inter-operator reproducibility and inter-device agreement were analysed. A disagreement value of ±0.5 mm and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were determined. Results: Hartmann-Shack aberrometer demonstrated higher repeatability and reproducibility than Placido-disc topographer in mesopic pupillometry. Ninety-seven percent and all of Hartmann-Shack wavefront aberrometer pupillometry were within ±0.5 mm in repeated sessions and between the operators, respectively. The mesopic pupil size obtained from Placido-disc topographer was significantly larger than Hartmann-Shack aberrometer results (P = 0.02). The agreement between devices was low (LoA > ±1 mm) and only 53% of Placido-disc topographer pupillometry were within ±0.5 mm of Hartmann-Shack aberrometer pupillometry. Conclusion: Hartmann-Shack aberrometer has higher precision within sessions and between operators, and it provides smaller mesopic pupillometry than Placido-disc topographer. Precise mesopic pupillometry could assist refractive surgeons in choosing a correct ablation OZ size during LASIK surgery to improve postoperative outcome.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate inter-session repeatability, inter-examiner reproducibility and inter-device agreement of corneal power measurements from manual keratometer, autokeratometer, topographer, Pentacam high resolution and IOLMaster. Methods: Two sets of mean corneal power measurements (n=40) were compared for inter-session repeatability and inter-examiner reproducibility in each instrument. Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated by within-subject standard deviation (Sw), coefficient of variation (COV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A oneway repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare differences in the corneal power between each instrument pair. The Bland and Altman analysis and Pearson’s correlation were employed to assess agreement and determine strength of relationship between measurements. Results: There were no significant differences in mean corneal power measurements between 2 different visits (p > 0.05). The Sw and COV values between 2 visits were lower than 0.09 D and 0.20 % respectively. The ICCs were stronger than 0.99 in all instruments. For reproducibility of each instrument, differences of the measurements between 2 different examiners were also insignificant (p > 0.05). The Sw and COV values between 2 examiners were lower than 0.11 D and 0.23 % respectively. The ICCs were 0.99 and above in all instruments. The 95% limit of agreement between instruments ranged from -0.29 to 1.13 D and the r-values were stronger than 0.84. Conclusion: The corneal power measurements using these 5 instruments were repeatable and reproducible. These instruments can also be used interchangeably, however the topographer should be used with caution.