Accommodation and its role in myopia progression and control with soft contact lenses.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of contact lens optical design on accommodative behaviour of children and the correlation between myopia progression and the accommodative response of the eye while wearing a contact lens designed for myopia control. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was conducted on data from a previously published myopia control trial. A total of 109 subjects (aged 8 to 11 years, myopia: -0.75 to -4.00 D) wore either a Control (single-vision, n = 57) or a Test (with positive spherical aberration, +SA, n = 52) soft contact lens, binocularly for 1 year. Accommodative response was measured as the subject observed targets at -1.00 to -4.00 D vergence using the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor (www.grandseiko.com). Slope of accommodative response (SAR) as well as distance and near phoria and stimulus accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) were compared between each group at baseline without study lenses and at 1-week and 1-year visits with study lenses. The SAR was also compared to changes in axial length (AL) and spherical equivalent cycloplegic auto refraction (SECAR). RESULTS: At baseline, there was no significant difference in SAR between the two study groups (ΔSAR = -0.039, p = 0.84). At 1 week, mean SAR of the Test group was significantly less than for the Control group (ΔSAR = -0.203, p < 0.0001), an effect that persisted to 1 year (ΔSAR = -0.129, p < 0.0001). In the Test group, greater SAR was associated with less change in AL (regression coefficient: -0.59 mm, p < 0.0001) and SECAR (regression coefficient: 1.12 D, p = 0.006) at 1 year. In the Control group, associations between SAR and change in AL and SECAR were not statistically significant. Compared to the Control group, eyes of the Test group appeared to be more exophoric with study lenses, however, the difference between the two groups was only significant at 1 week for distance phoria and 1 year for near phoria. CONCLUSION: The soft contact lens with +SA for controlling myopia progression resulted in an apparent decrease in mean accommodation. Within the Test group, reduced accommodative response correlated with greater myopia progression, suggesting some subjects in the Test group utilised the +SA for near viewing, inducing hyperopic defocus at the retina. Accordingly, the potential impact of a lens optics on accommodative function should be considered during design of myopia control lenses.

Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 26.0 mm: comparison of formulas and methods.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of formulas and methods for calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power for eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm. SETTING: Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The postoperative refraction results in myopic eyes with an AL over 26.0 mm were compared with the predicted refractions calculated using standard formulas (Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Haigis) with optical IOL constants, User Group for Laser Interference Biometry constants, and an AL-adjustment method and using new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen). RESULTS: In 76 (71.7%) of 106 eyes, the IOL was 6.0 diopters (D) or more (Group A) and in 30 eyes (28.3%) was less than 6.0 D (Group B). In Group A, the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen methods met the benchmark criteria of having a prediction error of ±0.5 D in at least 71.0% of eyes and ±1.0 D in 93.0% of eyes. In Group B, only the Barrett Universal II formula and the Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas using the AL-adjusted method met those criteria. CONCLUSION: When selecting IOLs for high and extreme myopia, choosing appropriate formulas and methods can yield accurate refractive results that meet benchmark criteria. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Visual rehabilitation in patients with myopic maculopathy: our experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the MP-1 microperimeter (Nidek Technologies Srl, Padova, Italy) and Visual Pathfinder (LACE Inc) in improving visual function of patients with myopic maculopathy. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen patients (34 eyes) between 36 and 58 years of age with myopic maculopathy and central retinal scotomas. METHODS: After a complete eye examination, all patients underwent 10 training sessions with MP-1 biofeedback (7 minutes) and Visual Pathfinder (3 minutes) for each eye once a week. Statistical analysis was performed with Student t test. The p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.64 ± 0.22 to 0.38 ± 0.20 logMAR at the end of follow-up (p = 0.03); visual-evoked potential P100 amplitude increased from 3.54 ± 1.90 to 6.64 ± 2.91 µV at the end of follow-up (p = 0.04); average retinal sensitivity, calculated in the 12 degrees of the central retina, increased from 6.6 ± 2.6 to 14.6 ± 3.6 dB (p = 0.03). Fixation behaviour in the 2 degrees of the central retina increased from 45% ± 17% to 75% ± 23% (p = 0.04). The bivariate contour ellipse area (95%) increased from 10.34 ± 3.11 to 7.64 ± 2.71 square degrees (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of acoustic biofeedback training with MP-1 and Visual Pathfinder offers a reasonable improvement of visual function in patients with myopic maculopathy. This method might be considered as a rehabilitative strategy as a "therapeutic option" in these patients for whom most treatments usually do not work.

Rehabilitación visual en baja visión / Visual rehabilitation in low vision

No disponible