Hoopes Vision

We commend Drs.Fedchuk, Grossenbacher, and Leccisotti for their thoughtful feedback regarding our article, "Comparing the Existing Myopic Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction (KLEx) Platforms: A Narrative Review." 1 We sincerely appreciate their recognition of our efforts to synthesize both early and long-term outcomes across emerging KLEx platforms.In our review, we acknowledged the variability in study methodologies, outcome measures, reporting standards, and patient demographics, which represent a significant limitation of our analysis.This made it challenging to accurately and fairly compare the current KLEx platforms.Our colleagues raise an important methodological point regarding the omission of explicit preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) values when reporting postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) as a measure of efficacy.We agree that preoperative CDVA provides valuable context when interpreting postoperative UDVA outcomes and that reporting it enhances clarity regarding visual efficacy.However, we would like to clarify that our review did, in fact, assess efficacy relative to preoperative CDVA, as stated in the text (page 2196): "Efficacy was assessed by the change in UDVA postoperatively compared to preoperative CDVA." 1 Although the percentage of eyes experiencing a change in Snellen CDVA was presented in Table 4, this was included as a descriptive measure of safety.Efficacy data were further discussed in the text to provide a balanced interpretation of each platform's visual outcomes.Across the included studies, efficacy data were presented heterogeneously.Most studies expressed efficacy as the percentage of eyes with postoperative UDVA equal to or better than preoperative CDVA, reflected in the Snellen line difference reported in our review.In contrast, the study by Leccisotti et al 2 using the CLEAR platform reported efficacy as postoperative UDVA at 10 months (page 1250). 2 However, the efficacy index, defined as postoperative UDVA divided by preoperative CDVA, was also provided.The reported efficacy index was 1.00, indicating no change in Snellen lines, and was included in our analysis to provide a comprehensive and comparative assessment across platforms.Similarly, the studies by Leccisotti et al 3 and Bteich et al 4 did not report overall efficacy in terms of percentage of eyes with Snellen line changes or the ratio of postoperative UDVA to preoperative CDVA.Regarding our colleagues' reference to the CLEAR platform studies by Leccisotti et al 3 and Bteich et al, 4 our discussion of age as a contributing factor to the difference in postoperative UDVA was intended as a contextual observation rather than a definitive causal attribution.Our mention of age as a potential contributor to the discrepancy in postoperative UDVA outcomes was not meant to exclude other factors, such as baseline CDVA, but rather to illustrate that several demographic and methodological variables likely influence postoperative efficacy.Both age distribution and

Purpose: We aim to assess the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate patient educational videos for various corneal refractive surgeries.Methods: Three AI text-to-video platforms (InVideo (San Francisco, CA), ClipTalk (San Francisco, CA), and EasyVid (Los Angeles, CA)) were used to create patient educational videos for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), respectively. Videos for LASIK and PRK from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and a SMILE video from Zeiss served as controls for each surgery. A three-point grading system (from zero to three, with zero being the worst and three being the best in each category) was used to compare videos in terms of "image accuracy," "script accuracy," "image clarity," and "script alignment."Results: In terms of image accuracy, the control videos outperformed InVideo, EasyVid, and ClipTalk for LASIK (3 versus 0.667 versus 0 versus 0; p<0.005), PRK (3 versus 1 versus 0.33 versus 0; p<0.05 for InVideo, p<0.005 all), and SMILE (3 versus 0.33 versus 0 versus 0.33; p<0.005), respectively. With a few exceptions, all three AI models performed similarly to the control videos in terms of script accuracy, image clarity, and script alignment.Conclusion: In their current state, AI text-to-video generators can produce surgical educational videos for patients with accurate script narration and high image clarity, although these platforms are not yet capable of producing medically accurate images to go along with these scripts. Further improvements in the medical accuracy of these images must be made to make these videos more appropriate for patient consumption.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are an emerging field of cancer treatments that are becoming more widespread in their use. However, there are potential ocular toxicities associated with these drugs that ophthalmologists need to be aware of to better maintain ocular health as patients undergo rigorous medical treatment for their conditions. While many ADCs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), many subsequent reports have been published regarding additional ocular side effects these drugs may cause. This review provides ophthalmologists with a practical guide on how to treat ocular toxicities associated with all FDA-approved ADCs to date. The potential pathophysiology of side effects is also discussed.

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most commonly used invasive devices in acute care hospitals, with nurses being primarily responsible for the insertion and care of these devices. This point prevalence study aimed to describe current PIVC status and nursing documentation in a large, regional health care system and to explore variables associated with PIVC complications. The study was conducted with adult inpatients. There were 665 PIVCs included in the study. Dressings were clean, dry, and intact in 83% of observations; only 2.7% did not have a transparent dressing. Thirty-one percent of PIVCs were inserted in areas of flexion. Median dwell time was 2.39days (± 2.36days), with upper arm sites having the longest dwell time. Overall inter-rater reliability (IRR) for an infiltration or phlebitis score of 0 was high (97.4% and 92%, respectively). However, overall agreement was only 77.16% for infiltration and 40.07% for phlebitis, with significant disagreement as scores increased. Study findings support that there was strong compliance with the Infusion Nurses Society's (INS) Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice vascular access practice recommendations; however, opportunities to improve infiltration/phlebitis assessment and documentation exist.

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae for eyes that have undergone both radial keratotomy (RK) and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery to determine the efficacy of various IOL calculations for this unique patient group. Currently, research on this surgical topic is limited. In this retrospective study, 11 eyes from 7 individuals with a history of RK and LASIK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision were analyzed. Preoperative biometric and corneal topographic measurements were performed. Subjective refraction was obtained postoperatively. Twelve different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were used: Barrett True K No History, Barrett True K (prior LASIK, Prior RK history), Barrett Universal 2, Camellin-Calossi-Camellin (3C), Double K-Modified Holladay, Haigis-L, Galilei, OCT, PEARL-DGS, Potvin-Hill, Panacea, and Shammas. The rankings of mean arithmetic error (MAE), from least to greatest, were as follows: 3C (0.088), Haigis-L-L (-0.508), Shammas (-0.516), OCT Average (-0.538), Barrett True K (-0.557), OCT RK (-0.563), Galilei (-0.570), IOL Master (-0.571), OCT LASIK (-0.583), Barrett True K No History (-0.597), Pearl-DGS (-0.606), Potvin-Hill SF (-0.770), Potvin-Hill TNP (-0.778), Panacea (-0.876), and Barrett Universal 2 (-1.522). The 3C formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D of target range (91%), while Haigis-L, Shammas, Galilei, Potvin Hill, Barrett True K, IOL Master, PEARL-DGS, and OCT formulae performed similarly, achieving 45% of eyes within ±0.75D of target refraction. This study demonstrates the accuracy of the lesser known 3C formula in IOL calculation, particularly for patients who have undergone both RK and LASIK. Well-known formulae, such as Haigis-L, Shammas, and Galilei, which are used by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), are viable options, although 3C formulae should be considered in this patient population. Furthermore, larger studies can confirm the best IOL power formulas for post-RK and LASIK cataract patients.

Purpose: To explore size, decentration, and eccentricity of effective optical zones (EOZs) in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and correlate them to higher order aberrations (HOAs). Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of 188 eyes that underwent refractive surgery for compound myopia (61 LASIK, 84 PRK, 43 SMILE). EOZ measurements were determined using 1-year postoperative Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH) tangential difference maps. HOA data were measured using Pentacam wavefront aberration Zernike polynomials. Correlations between EOZs and HOAs were analyzed. Results: The EOZs of LASIK and PRK are smaller than SMILE at 19.54 ± 1.44, 19.39 ± 1.66, and 22.18 ± 2.61 mm 2 , respectively ( P &lt; .001). No difference existed in absolute decentration from corneal vertex ( P = .078) or pupil center ( P = .131), but horizontal and vertical components differed significantly ( P &lt; .001). Smaller EOZ areas were correlated with greater spherical aberration induction (rLASIK = −0.378, rPRK = −0.555, rSMILE = −0.501) and total HOA induction in all groups. Absolute decentration from corneal vertex positively correlated with total HOA (rLASIK = 0.396, rPRK = 0.463, rSMILE = 0.399) and directional vertical coma induction negatively correlated with vertical decentration from the corneal vertex (rLASIK = −0.776, rPRK = −0.665, rSMILE = −0.576) in all groups. Conclusions: SMILE results in a larger EOZ than LASIK and PRK, and absolute decentration remains comparable regardless of surgical reference center, despite horizontal/vertical differences. Surgical planning to ensure adequate EOZ size and centration may reduce induction of HOAs, including spherical aberrations and vertical coma. [ J Refract Surg . 2023;39(11):741–750.]

To compare 3 of the most common corneal refractive procedures; PRK, LASIK, and SMILE assessing ΔK/ΔSEQ ratio and its correlation with preoperative demographics including age, keratometry, pachymetry, cylinder value, and attempted myopic correction. The goal was to analyze the relative strength of each preoperative parameter in accounting for changes in ∆K/∆SEQ. A total of 370 eyes from 102 male and 97 female patients (173 eyes PRK, 153 LASIK, and 44 SMILE) with ages ranging from 20 to 51 underwent refractive surgery for myopia between -0.25 and -7.71 D manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE). All surgeries were performed at a single surgery center in Draper, Utah. The Pentacam was used for all optical measurements and data were gathered pre-operatively and then again 1-year post-operatively. Only patients who achieved emmetropia at a visual acuity of 20/25 or better were included. The mean ΔK/ΔSEQ ratio for LASIK (0.839 ± 0.020) was significantly greater than that of PRK (0.775 ± 0.022) and SMILE (0.709 ± 0.046). Age was found to negatively correlate with ΔK/ΔSEQ for both LASIK (r = -0.177) and SMILE (r = -0.451) procedures. Pre-op keratometry was found to negatively correlate with ΔK/ΔSEQ for LASIK (r = -0.202) but not for PRK or SMILE. Pre-op pachymetry was not correlated with ΔK/ΔSEQ for any of the procedures. Attempted myopic spherical equivalent (SEQ) correction was positively correlated with ΔK/ΔSEQ for LASIK (r = 0.236), PRK (r = 0.459), and SMILE (r = 0.304). Lastly, pre-op cylinder value was found to be correlated to ΔK/ΔSEQ in SMILE (r = -0.367), but not in LASIK or PRK. The ΔK/ΔSEQ ratio not only differs depending on the procedure being done but also by pre-operative factors such as age, keratometry, attempted correction, and cylinder value. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the attempted correction had the greatest effect on ∆K/∆SEQ out of all parameters in LASIK and PRK. For SMILE, age had the greatest predictive value of the change in ∆K/∆SEQ. While the exact effect of these parameters will vary by surgeon, all of these should be factored into a refractive surgeon's nomograms in order to achieve optimal visual outcomes for their patients.

The ratio of posterior-to-anterior curvature radii of the cornea (P/A ratio) is an important element in determining corneal refractive power. P/A ratio has been well studied in patients prior to undergoing refractive surgery, but its postoperative value remains less so. We aimed to examine the value of preoperative characteristics of refractive surgery patients in predicting the 1-year postoperative P/A ratio in LASIK, PRK, and SMILE using both linear and multivariate regression analyses. This was a retrospective study that included patients with manifest refraction spherical equivalents (MRSE) from -7.71D to -0.25D. In total, 164 eyes underwent LASIK, 183 underwent PRK, and 46 underwent SMILE. All patients had preoperative and 1-year postoperative front sagittal and back sagittal keratometry measurements at 4, 5, and 6 mm around the corneal vertex. Postoperative P/A after LASIK, PRK, and SMILE was found to be significantly correlated with MRSE and preoperative P/A. Stepwise variable selection in multivariate regression revealed that spherical equivalent was the most significant predictor of postoperative P/A. When coupled with other preoperative characteristics, including P/A, age, asphericity, and keratometry, the multivariate regressions were able to produce models with high predictive value in LASIK (adjusted R2: 0.957), PRK (adjusted R2: 0.934), and SMILE (adjusted R2: 0.894).

This study compares the visual and refractive performance of the TECNIS Synergy (DFR00V-DFW150-225-300-375) multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and the AcrySof IQ PanOptix (TFAT00-30-40-50-60) multifocal IOL. Patients who underwent phacoemulsification and cataract extraction and received either a multifocal Synergy or PanOptix IOL were included. Monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), near (UNVA), and corrected distance (CDVA) visual acuities were assessed at three and six months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures of photic phenomena were also assessed. A total of 140 patients (224 eyes) were included in this study, with 69 patients (105 eyes) in the Synergy group and 71 patients (119 eyes) in the PanOptix group. There were no statistically significant differences in UIVA or CDVA measurements across all time points. When assessing UDVA, at three months postoperatively, there were more eyes in the PanOptix group with vision better than 20/40 (p = 0.04). At three and six months postoperatively, the average UNVA was superior in the Synergy group (p = 0.01, 0.002). While the Synergy group reported more night vision disturbances at one and three months (p = 0.01, 0.03), the PanOptix group had more night vision disturbances at six months (p = 0.02). Although not statistically significant, the AcrySof IQ PanOptix multifocal IOL demonstrated better UDVA and UIVA sooner postoperatively than the TECNIS Synergy multifocal IOL. The Synergy IOL provided statistically better UNVA compared to the PanOptix IOL at three and six months postoperatively. Synergy patients reported more early photic phenomena than PanOptix patients, which later diminished.

Presbyopia may represent the largest segment of refractive errors that is without an established and effective refractive surgery treatment. Corneal Inlays are materials (synthetic or allogenic) implanted in the stroma of patients’ corneas to improve presbyopia. These inlays, introduced into the United States in 2015 via the small-aperture corneal inlay (KAMRATM, SightLife Surgical/CorneaGen, Seattle, Washington, United States), were met with an initial wave of enthusiasm. Subsequent models like the shape-changing corneal inlay (RAINDROPTM, Revision Optics, Lake Forest, California, United States) offered excellent results for patients, but longer-term research raised questions about patient safety. At the time of this article, no synthetic corneal inlays are available in the United States for the correction of presbyopia. Other options for presbyopia correction include allograft corneal inlays, trifocal synthetic corneal inlays, pharmacologic therapies, scleral incisions or additive techniques and PresbyLASIK. Presently, allograft inlays consist of corneal lenticules removed from patients undergoing Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE). We will review corneal inlays and other alternative procedures that may provide effective and predictable treatments for patients with presbyopia.