Efficacy and safety evaluation of Monoblue Dual View and Monoblue ILM View vital stains during vitrectomy surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the staining properties of Monoblue inner limiting membrane (ILM) View and Monoblue DUAL View (study products) vital stains during vitrectomy surgery to those of ILM Blue or Membrane Blue Dual (control products). METHODS: In this study, 105 patients were included in the Ophthalmic Clinic of the University Hospitals Leuven from September 2021 to April 2022. For prospective data collection in this study, patients were randomized between a control group (ILM Blue or Membrane Blue Dual, manufactured and commercialized by DORC®) and a study group (Monoblue ILM View or Monoblue DUAL View, manufactured and commercialized by Arcadophta®-BVI®). For retrospective data collection, patients were divided into similar surgery groups. Efficacy was analyzed using a binary subjective evaluation of the visualization of stained membranes during vitrectomy. The rate and severity of potential adverse events related to the study products were tracked, allowing both treatment groups to be compared with the corresponding control groups (ILM Blue and Membrane Blue Dual). RESULTS: Based on the results and findings, none of the comparisons (primary outcomes) were statistically significant, showing similar efficacy of the dyes used. The study products were found to be safe in this study since no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings indicate that the Monoblue ILM View and Monoblue DUAL View dyes can safely be used during vitrectomy to stain the ILM and/or epiretinal membrane (ERM) when removal is needed.

Efficacy and safety of the implantation of a single-piece angulated foldable IOL in the sulcus.

PURPOSE: To study the visual results and tolerance of a Zeiss CT Lucia 601P intraocular lens (IOL) implanted in the sulcus after complicated cataract surgery or during IOL exchange for clouded IOL. METHODS: In total, 64 patients who underwent sulcus implantation were recalled to the hospital to undergo subjective and objective refraction, best corrected visual acuity measurement, tonometry, optical coherence tomography, laser flare photometry, biometry, and wavefront aberrometry. RESULTS: In spite of a large variation in preoperative refraction, the target refraction was obtained within 1.5 diopters in approximately 97% of patients and within 0.5 diopter in 53% of patients. Average BCVA was high (Snellen 0.86) and related to concomitant (mostly retinal) pathologies in eyes with poorer visual performance. Wavefront aberrometry showed no evidence of IOL tilting or decentration after long-term implantation in the sulcus. Tonometry was not different from the fellow eye of the patient (p > 0.5). In 53 patients with bilateral pseudophakia, the laser flare photometry was not significantly different from the fellow eye (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that this single-piece angulated foldable acrylic IOL can be considered for implantation in the sulcus. The visual results are favorable, and the IOL can be well-positioned and tolerated in the sulcus. Moreover, there were no safety issues found since there was no evidence of elevated IOP or chronic uveitis.

Semi-automated kinetic perimetry: Comparison of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey visual field analyzer 3 versus Goldmann perimetry.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical usefulness and reproducibility of (semi-)automated kinetic perimetry of the Octopus 900 and Humphrey field analyzer 3 (HFA3) compared to Goldmann perimetry as reference technique. METHODS: A prospective interventional study of two study groups, divided into three subgroups. The first study group consisted of 28 patients, performing one visual field examination on each of the three devices. A second group of 30 patients performed four examinations, one on Goldmann and three on Octopus 900 with the following testing strategies: (1) with reaction time (RT) vector, no headphone; (2) without RT vector, no headphone; and (3) without RT vector, with headphone. Comparisons for V4e and I4e stimuli were made of the mean isopter radius (MIR) and of the distances of the isopter to the central visual axis in four directions. Statistical analysis was made with the R software version 3.2.2. RESULTS: For V4e stimuli, the mean isopter radius showed no statistic significant difference comparing Goldmann to HFA3 [p-value = 0.144; confidence interval (CI) -0.152 to 0.019] and comparing Goldmann to Octopus 900 without RT vector, either with (p-value = 0.347; CI -0.023 to 0.081) or without headphone (p-value = 0.130; CI -0.011 to 0.095). Octopus 900 with RT vector produced a significantly larger MIR for V4e stimuli in comparison to Goldmann (p-value < 0.001). I4e stimuli produced statistically significantly larger visual field areas when comparing HFA3 and Octopus 900 to Goldmann perimetry. CONCLUSION: Humphrey field analyzer 3 and Octopus 900 without RT vector are promising successors of Goldmann perimetry.