Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To evaluate the accommodative response to different accommodative stimulus and to determine the changes in ocular higher-order aberrations with accommodation in keratoconus patients fitted with mini scleral lenses.
Material And Methods: The study included 15 keratoconus patients wearing mini scleral lenses (Misa Scleral Lens-Microlens, Arnhem, the Netherlands) and 15 keratoconus patients wearing rigid gas permeable lenses. Hartmannn Shack aberrometer (IRX-3; Imagine Eyes, Orsay, France) was used for the evaluation of accommodation. Accommodative responses to the accommodative stimulus ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 diopters (D) with intervals of 0.5 D were recorded. Spherical, coma, trefoil aberration, and root mean square (RMS) of total higher-order aberrations (HOAs, third to sixth orders) at baseline, at 2.5 D stimulus, and at 5 D stimulus were also recorded.
Results: Although accommodative response to accommodative stimulus of 0.5 to 2.5 D (with 0.5 D intervals) was similar in both groups, accommodative response to accommodative stimulus of 3.0 to 5.0 D was significantly lower in keratoconus group wearing mini scleral lenses. The coma, spherical, trefoil aberrations, and the RMS of total HOAs at baseline, at 2.5 D stimulus, and at 5 D stimulus were not significantly different between the groups. However, changes in the coma and trefoil aberrations and RMS of total HOA with 2.5 D and 5.0 D stimulus were significant only in the RGP group.
Conclusions: Accommodative response to increasing accommodative stimulus was found to be impaired in keratoconus patients wearing mini scleral lenses.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000317 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!