Mix-and-match vs bilateral trifocal and bilateral EDOF intraocular lens implantation: the spline curve battle.

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative visual acuity curves following 3 pseudophakic presbyopic correction techniques. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, comparative trial. METHODS: For this study, patients with stage 2 Lens Opacities Classification System III cataract were divided into 3 study groups: (1) premium monovision group, including patients who received the Panoptix intraocular lens (IOL) in the recessive eye and Vivity IOL in the dominant one; (2) bilateral trifocal group, including those who received bilaterally the Panoptix IOL; and (3) bilateral xEDOF group, including patients who received bilaterally the Vivity IOL. Postoperative bilateral uncorrected distance visual acuity was measured at 25.5, 28, 33, 40, 50, 66, 100, 200, and 300 cm distances. Spline curve fitting was attempted, and areas of the curves (AOCs) and curvature k were calculated. All patients responded to the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ-25). RESULTS: 90 patients were equally divided into the 3 groups. Premium monovision and bilateral trifocal implantations delivered similar visual acuity (all AOC P > .05); however, the trifocal patients suffered from drops in vision acuity in certain distance ranges as expressed by negative curvature values. Bilateral xEDOF patients demonstrated worse near vision acuity ( P < .05). Premium monovision patients reported better scores in NEI-VFQ 25 ( P = .03) and in the near activities ( P = .02) and distant activities ( P = .04) subscales. CONCLUSIONS: All surgical options provided impressive outcomes. Premium monovision appeared to deliver the best results.

Validation of a web-based distance visual acuity test.

PURPOSE: To validate the Democritus Digital Acuity and Reading Test (DDART) as a distance VA (dVA) test against a series of prevalent conventional distance vision charts. SETTING: Ophthalmology Department, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece; Ophthalmology Department, AHEPA University Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece; and Ophthalmica Institute of Ophthalmology & Microsurgery, Thessaloniki, Greece. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter validation study. METHODS: The distance best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (dBSCVA) was compared in normal (NVG) and low (LVG) vision participants against 4 prevalent conventional distance vision charts (ETDRS, Snellen, Landolt C, and Tumbling E) by a predefined 2.5-symbol noninferiority margin and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). DDART's test-retest (TRT) reliability was assessed with ICCs. RESULTS: 534 participants (471 and 63 with normal and low vision, respectively) were included in the study. The mean difference between dBSCVA measured with DDART and conventional charts ranged between -0.84 and +0.85 symbols, without exceeding the 2.5-symbol noninferiority margin. ICCs indicated an excellent level of agreement for all patient groups (from 0.848 to 0.985). TRT reliability indicated differences below 1 symbol both for the NVG and LVG, with ICCs ranging between 0.912 and 0.964 for the 4 DDARTs. CONCLUSIONS: DDART was a valid web-based dVA test that provided reliable measurements in clinical and telemedical settings, both for normal and low vision patients.

Development and Validation of the First Smart TV-Based Visual Acuity Test: A Prospective Study.

(1) Background: While smartphones are among the primary devices used in telemedical applications, smart TV healthcare apps are not prevalent despite smart TVs' penetrance in home settings. The present study's objective was to develop and validate the first smart TV-based visual acuity (VA) test (Democritus Digital Visual Acuity Test (DDiVAT)) that allows a reliable VA self-assessment. (2) Methods: This is a prospective validation study. DDiVAT introduces several advanced features for reliable VA self-testing; among them: automatic calibration, voice recognition, voice guidance, automatic calculation of VA indexes, and a smart TV-based messaging system. Normal and low vision participants were included in the validation. DDiVAT VA results (VADDiVAT) were compared against the ones from: (a) the gold-standard conventional ETDRS (VAETDRS), and, (b) an independent ophthalmologist who monitored the self-examination testing (VARES). Comparisons were performed by noninferiority test (set at 2.5-letters) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). DDiVAT's test-retest reliability was assessed within a 15-day time-window. (3) Results: A total of 300 participants (185 and 115 with normal and low vision, respectively) responded to ETDRS and DDiVAT. Mean difference in letters was -0.05 for VAETDRS-VARES, 0.62 for VARES-VADDiVAT, and 0.67 for VAETDRS-VADDiVAT, significantly lower than the 2.5 letter noninferiority margin. ICCs indicated an excellent level of agreement, collectively and for each group (0.922-0.996). All displayed letters in DDiVAT presented a similar difficulty. The overall accuracy of the voice recognition service was 96.01%. ICC for VADDiVAT test-retest was 0.957. (4) Conclusions: The proposed DDiVAT presented non-significant VA differences with the ETDRS, suggesting that it can be used for accurate VA self-assessment in telemedical settings, both for normal and low-vision patients.