ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the contrast sensitivity, glare, color perception, and visual acuity at different light intensities with yellow-tinted and clear intraocular lenses (IOLs) by different manufacturers. SETTING: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Retinology and Biomicroscopic Laser-Surgery, Department of Ophthalmology, Rudolf Foundation Clinic, Vienna, Austria. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: Eyes were randomized to 1 of the following IOLs: AF-1 (UY) (yellow tinted), AcrySof SN60AT (yellow tinted), AF-1 (UV) (clear), or AcrySof SA60AT (clear). One week and 2 months postoperatively, monocular contrast sensitivity function and color discrimination were tested and the corrected distance and near visual acuities were evaluated. All tests were performed under different light intensities (10 to 1000 lux). RESULTS: Of the 80 patients enrolled, 76 completed the study; there were 37 eyes in the yellow-tinted IOL group and 39 in the clear IOL group. There were no significant differences between yellow-tinted IOLs and clear IOLs except in color vision under mesopic conditions (10 lux). Patients with a yellow-tinted IOL made significantly more mistakes in the blue-light spectrum than patients with clear IOLs (P = .00015). There was no significant difference under photopic conditions (1000 lux). CONCLUSIONS: The yellow-tinted IOLs were equivalent to the clear IOLs in postoperative contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and color perception under photopic conditions. Patients with yellow-tinted IOLs made statistically significantly more mistakes in the blue range under dim light than patients with clear IOLs.
Subject(s)
Color Perception/physiology , Contrast Sensitivity/physiology , Glare , Lenses, Intraocular , Pseudophakia/physiopathology , Visual Acuity/physiology , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Lens Implantation, Intraocular , Light , Phacoemulsification , Prospective Studies , Ultraviolet RaysABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological screening to examine possible ultraviolet-induced ocular changes and pathologies in Austrian farmers. METHODS: The study was performed on behalf of the Austrian farmer insurance (Sozialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern). Randomly selected farmers and office workers as controls, both at the age of 35-55 years, underwent ophthalmic screening examinations. All subjects underwent complete ophthalmic examinations by slit lamp examination and Schirmer's test 1. A survey, regarding personal habits in the sun, was also conducted. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-two subjects underwent ophthalmic examinations of whom 297 were farmers and 95 were controls. Due to the survey, 89.7% of the farmers claimed to protect themselves from the sun during work. From these subjects, 83.7% wear a head protection, 71.0% wear sunglasses, and 54.4% usually work in the shade. There were significant differences in lid (p = 0.021) and conjunctival pathologies (p < 0.0001) between farmers and controls. CONCLUSION: Austrian farmers are at a higher risk for developing lid and conjunctival tumours which require treatment at some point. We believe that the study group was too young to show significant differences within the lens and the posterior pole. A 5-year follow-up is planned.
Subject(s)
Agriculture , Conjunctival Diseases/epidemiology , Eye/radiation effects , Eyelid Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Radiation Injuries/epidemiology , Ultraviolet Rays/adverse effects , Adult , Austria/epidemiology , Conjunctival Diseases/etiology , Eye Protective Devices/statistics & numerical data , Eyelid Diseases/etiology , Humans , Middle Aged , Radiation Injuries/etiology , Radiation Injuries/prevention & control , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab therapy for early and advanced neovascular age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). METHODS: A consecutive series of eyes with neovascular ARMD treated with monthly intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml) as long as there was evidence of activity on fluorescein angiography (FA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) was included and observed for 6 months. For further analysis they were assigned to either an early (untreated/newly diagnosed) or an advanced (predominantly fibrotic/pre-treated) ARMD group. We examined distance visual acuity (VA) with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts and central retinal thickness with OCT, as well as lesion size and safety aspects. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (44 eyes) were enrolled (21 early lesions, 23 advanced lesions). Mean VA changed from 0.74 logMAR at baseline to 0.68 logMAR at month 6 (P = 0.01). Improvement in VA was statistically significant only in eyes with early lesions (n = 21) from month 1 (P = 0.015) up to month 6 (P = 0.03). The changes in central retinal thickness (CRT) (P < 0.001) and total lesion size (P < 0.001) were significant in both groups (early and advanced) at all time-points during follow-up. No significant ocular or systemic adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal bevacizumab was tolerated well by our patients and we did not identify any apparent short-term safety concerns. We observed stabilization in VA overall, with significant improvement in the early lesion group.
