Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the distance, intermediate, and near visual performance of a new IOL (ICB00, Eyhance, Tecnis) and classic monofocal IOL (SN60WF IQ AcrySof, Alcon) after unilateral implantation. METHODS: Sixty-three patients were unilaterally implanted with the ICB00 Eyhance IOL (study group) and 65 patients with the SN60WF IQ AcrySof (control group). Visual performance was assessed with monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 4 m, corrected intermediate visual acuity (CIVA) and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 60 cm, and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm. RESULTS: CDVA, UDVA, CNVA, and UNVA values did not differ significantly between the study and control groups (0.02 ± 0.02 vs. 0.03 ± 0.02, p = 0.523; 0.05 ± 0.13 vs. 0.05 ± 0.15, p = 0.637; 0.46 ± 0.17 vs. 0.46 ± 0.15, p = 0.821; and 0.47 ± 0.21 vs. 0.49 ± 0.25, p = 0.612; respectively), whereas the study group showed significantly better results for CIVA (0.28 ± 0.12 vs. 0.38 ± 0.13, p = 0.001) and UIVA (0.31 ± 0.16 vs. 0.41 ± 0.12, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Eyhance IOL, which features a new optical design based on a continuous power profile, was determined to be superior to a classic monofocal IOL for intermediate visual acuity and not inferior for corrected and uncorrected distance and near visual acuity.

RETRACTED: Azithromycin 1.5% Ophthalmic Solution for Blepharitis Treatment: Comparison of 14- Versus 30-Day Treatment.

The online-ahead-of-print published article, "Azithromycin 1.5% Ophthalmic Solution for Blepharitis Treatment: Comparison of 14- Versus 30-Day Treatment," by Altay Yesim, Demirok Gulizar, Balta Ozgur, and Bolu Hulya (DOI: 10.1089/jop.2015.0099) is being officially retracted from Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics (JOPT) due to post-publication authorship disputes and the discovery of simultaneous submission to both JOPT and the International Journal of Ophthalmology, which is a violation of the proper protocols of peer review. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics and its editorial leadership are committed to maintaining the highest levels of scientific reporting and publishing, and therefore officially retracts the article based on the infringements listed herein.

Measurements of Pupillary Diameter and Wavefront Aberrations in Pregnant Women.

Purpose. To show whether pregnancy affects the measurements of pupillary diameter and wavefront (WF) aberrations. Methods. This was a case-control study including 34 healthy pregnant women in the third trimester and age-matched 34 nonpregnant women. Only women who had no ocular abnormalities and no refractive error were included. We measured photopic and mesopic pupil diameter and WF aberrations at the third trimester and at the second postpartum month. Measurements of the right eyes were used in this study. The differences between groups were analysed by paired t-test and t-test. Results. Pregnant women's mean photopic pupil size in the third trimester was significantly higher than in postpartum period and in control group (3.74 ± 0.77, 3.45 ± 0.53, and 3.49 ± 0.15 mm, p < 0.05, resp.). Mesopic pupil size in the third trimester was also higher than in postpartum period and in control group (6.77 ± 0.52, 6.42 ± 0.55, and 6.38 ± 0.21 mm, p < 0.05, resp.). RMS-3 and RMS-5 values were higher in pregnancy but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion. Pregnancy increased photopic and mesopic pupil size significantly but did not increase wavefront aberrations notably. Increased pupil size may be due to increased sympathetic activity during pregnancy. And this activity can be noninvasively determined by measuring pupil size.