Abstract Objective: To describe the outcomes in terms of near visual acuity and quality of life in 10 patients submitted to Scharioth Macular Lens implantation. Setting: João Eugênio Eye Institute, Brasilia, Brazil. Design: Uncontroled clinical trial. Methods: Ten pseudophakic patients with DMRI were submitted to the implantation of intraocular SML in the dominant eye in the period of December of 2017 to the March of 2018. All the patients had answered the Low-Vision Quality of Life Questionaire (LVQOLQ) before and after the surgery, with interval of 30 days. Results: The results points showed a statistical significant improvement (p<0.001) in the near visual acuity (NVA), without interference in the distance vision. All patients had significant improvements (p<0,05) in LVQOLQ on the item that evaluates the near visual acuity. Conclusion: There was an improvement of NVA in all 10 patients, as well as an enhancement to the quality of life in the postoperative period when compared to the preoperative period.

ABSTRACT The case of a 55-year-old male who presented central retinal vein occlusion with marked macular ischemia in left eye is reported. Despite the intervention with sustained-release dexamethasone polymer injection and other clinical measures, the visual acuity was severely reduced in left eye. After 8 months, he returned to the emergency with acute visual loss of 2 hours of progression in right eye due to a central retinal artery occlusion, sparing only the territory of the cilioretinal artery. Patient underwent clinical maneuvers with anterior chamber paracentesis and intravenous injection of tissue plasminogen activator. Fluorescein angiography immediately after the procedures showed recanalization, but despite arterial vasodilation, no complete recanalization was observed after 24 hours. The patient developed retinal atrophy.

The case of a 55-year-old male who presented central retinal vein occlusion with marked macular ischemia in left eye is reported. Despite the intervention with sustained-release dexamethasone polymer injection and other clinical measures, the visual acuity was severely reduced in left eye. After 8 months, he returned to the emergency with acute visual loss of 2 hours of progression in right eye due to a central retinal artery occlusion, sparing only the territory of the cilioretinal artery. Patient underwent clinical maneuvers with anterior chamber paracentesis and intravenous injection of tissue plasminogen activator. Fluorescein angiography immediately after the procedures showed recanalization, but despite arterial vasodilation, no complete recanalization was observed after 24 hours. The patient developed retinal atrophy.

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar o resultado entre dois tipos de tonômetros, tendo como padrão ouro a tonometria de aplanação, relacionando com a espessura corneana e suas validações como instrumentos de rastreio populacional. Métodos: Estudo transversal comparativo, realizado com 400 olhos do ambulatório de oftalmologia da Adachi Oftalmologia, em Macapá (Amapá), entre os valores médios da pressão ocular medidos pelo tonômetro Icare®, o Tonômetro Pneumático e o Tonômetro de Aplanação de Goldmann em função da espessura corneana. Foram divididos conforme a ECC em 3 grupos. Grupo 1: 260 olhos com ECC< 530µ; grupo 2: 217 olhos com ECC entre 530µ e 590µ; e, grupo 3: 157 olhos com ECC>590µ. Resultados: A ECC média obtida na paquimetria foi de 557µ, variando de 651µ a 477µ (desvio padrão de 32.9). A PIO média obtida pela TP foi de 19,4 mmHg (com desvio padrão de 2,32); pelo Icare® foi de 16,7mmHg (desvio padrão de 2,12); e, na TAG foi de 15.5 mmHg (desvio padrão de 2,02). Para paquimetrias inferiores a 530µ e superiores a 590µ a PIOm não diferiu significativamente entre a TAG e Icare® (p = 0,232), sendo estatisticamente significativa diferença obtida para córneas com ECC entre 530 e 590 µ. A PIOm obtida pelo TP foi significativamente maior do que a pressão ocular média dos TAG e Icare® (p < 0,001 para ambos) em todos os grupos. Conclusões: Os três métodos podem ser utilizados em campanhas de rastreamento, porém o Icare® se mostrou mais confiável que a TP, com valores obtidos estatisticamente mais confiáveis quando comparados à TP. Existe suficiente concordância entre o Icare e a TAG para recomendar o seu uso.