RESUMEN
ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the differences between the apparent and actual chord μ. Methods: In this prospective, comparative, non-randomized, and non-interventional study, imaging examinations using Pentacam and the HD Analyzer were performed in the same room under the same scotopic conditions. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 21-71 years, able to provide informed consent, myopia up to 4D, and anterior topographic astigmatism up to 1D. Patients using contact lenses, those with previous eye diseases or surgeries, corneal opacities, corneal tomographic changes, or suspected keratoconus were excluded. Results: Altogether, 116 eyes of 58 patients were analyzed. The patients' mean age was 30.69 (±7.85) years. In the correlation analyses, Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.647 indicates a moderate positive linear relationship between apparent and actual chord μ. The mean actual and apparent chord μ were 226.21 ± 128.53 and 278.66 ± 123.90 μm, respectively, with a mean difference of 52.45 μm (p=0.01). The analysis of mean pupillary diameter resulted in 5.76 mm using the HD Analyzer and 3.31 mm using the Pentacam. Conclusions: We found a correlation between the two measurement devices, and even though we found considerable differences, both can be used in daily practice. Given their differences, we should respect their peculiarities as well.
RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar as diferenças entre a chord aparente μ e o chord real μ. Métodos: Estudo prospectivo, comparativo, não randomizado e não intervencionista. Os exames de imagem (Pentacam e HD Analyzer) foram realizados na mesma sala e nas mesmas condições escotópicas. Os critérios de inclusão foram idade de 21 a 71 anos; compreensão do termo de consentimento; miopia até 4D e astigmatismo topográfico anterior até 1D. Os critérios de exclusão foram usuários de lentes de contato; pacientes com doenças oculares prévias ou cirurgias; opacidades da córnea; a presença de alterações tomográficas da córnea ou suspeita de ceratocone. Resultados: Em nosso estudo foram analisados 116 olhos de 58 pacientes. A média de idade foi de 30,69 anos (± 7,85). Análises de correlação foram desenvolvidas e o coeficiente de correlação de Pearson (0,647) indica uma relação linear positiva moderada entre as variáveis. A média do chord μ real foi 226,21 ± 128,53 μm e a média do chord μ média foi 278,66 ± 123,90 μm, com diferença média de 52,45 μm (p=0,01). A análise do diâmetro pupilar médio apresentou: 5,76mm no HD Analyzer e 3,31mm no Pentacam. Conclusões: Entendemos a existência de uma diferença significativa entre os métodos e assim a medida de ambos os dispositivos com base em princípios diferentes devemos respeitar suas peculiaridades. Como encontramos correlação entre as duas medidas, acreditamos que ambas podem ser utilizadas na prática diária.
RESUMEN
Purpose: Compare the safety and efficacy of wavefront?guided photorefractive keratotomy (PRK) 6 months after cross?linking (CXL) to wavefront?guided PRK alone for refractive correction in patients with bilateral asymmetric corneal topography. Methods: Prospective randomized clinical trial with 16 patients (32 eyes). CXL with subsequent PRK after 6 months in one eye, and PRK alone was performed in contralateral eyes. The follow?up was 10 years. We analyzed visual outcomes, Scheimpflug topography, and corneal haze evaluation. Results: Eyes in the PRK group showed better results than in the CXL + PRK group. Mean postoperative CDVA was 0.044 logmar (SD, 0.073) in the PRK group and 0.1 logmar (SD, 0.21) in the CXL + PRK group, the mean sphere was + 0.21 (SD, 0.6) D in the PRK group and 0.87 (SD, 2.3) D in the CXL + PRK group, and mean SE was ?0.35 (SD, 0.65) D in the PRK group and 0.62 (SD, 2.32) D in the CXL + PRK group. In one patient, a steepening of 2.5 D and a thinning of 17 ?m occurred in PRK alone group. Two patients in the CXL + PRK group presented corneal haze. The overall complication rate was 18,75% (haze and ectasia). Conclusion: Non?simultaneous CXL and PRK procedures yielded good refractive results, but worse than those obtained with PRK alone. Although one patient in the PRK group developed corneal ectasia, the CXL + PRK group had a higher loss of vision lines, indicating less safety
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The optical correction of presbyopia must be handled individually. Our aim was to compare the methods used in addition to the refractive near vision, with the final addition used in presbyopic patients. METHODS: Eighty healthy subjects with a mean age of 49.7 years (range 40 to 60 years) were studied. Tentative near additions were determined using four different techniques: one-half amplitude accommodation with minus lenses (AAL); one-third accommodative demand with positive lens (ADL); balanced range of accommodation with minus and positive lenses (BRA) and crossed cylinder test with initial myopisation (CCT). The power of the addition was then refined to arrive at the final addition. RESULTS: The mean tentative near additions were lower than the final addition for ADL and BRA addition methods. The mean differences between tentative and final additions were low for all the tests examined (less than 0.25 D). The intervals between the 95% limits of agreement differed substantially and were always higher than ±0.50 D. CONCLUSION: All the methods used displayed similar behavior and provided a tentative addition close to the final addition. The coefficient of agreements (COA) detected suggests that every tentative addition should be adjusted according to the particular needs of the patient.
OBJETIVO: A correção óptica da presbiopia deve ser manejada individualmente. Nosso intuito é de comparar os métodos usados para calcular a adição na elaboração do grau para perto em pacientes présbitas. MÉTODOS: Oitenta pacientes com média de idade de 49,7 anos (intervalo de 40 a 60 anos) foram estudados. Adições provisórias foram determinadas usando quatro diferentes técnicas: metade da amplitude de acomodação com lentes negativas (AAL); um terço da demanda acomodativa com lentes positivas (ADL); média aritmética da acomodação usando lentes positivas e negativas (BRA); teste com o cilindro cruzado com miopização (CCT). O grau final foi refinado até chegar a graduação final da adição. RESULTADOS: A média das adições nos testes foram menores que as adições finais nos métodos ADL e BRA. As diferenças médias entre os testes e o grau final foram baixas em todos os métodos (menores que +0,25 D). Os intervalos entre os 95% dos limites da concordância diferenciaram substancialmente e foram todos maiores que ±0.50 D. CONCLUSÃO: Todos os métodos usados demonstraram comportamentos similares e forneceram resultados bem próximos da adição final. O coeficiente de concordância (COA) detectado, sugere que todos os métodos utilizados devem ser ajustados de acordo com as necessidades do paciente.