Person: García Montero, María
Loading...
First Name
María
Last Name
García Montero
Affiliation
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Faculty / Institute
Óptica y Optometría
Department
Optometría y Visión
Area
Optica
Identifiers
3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Item The role of clinical diagnosis criteria on the frequency of accommodative insufficiency(International journal of ophthalmology, 2019) García Montero, María; Antona Peñalba, Beatriz; Barrio de Santos, Ana Rosa; Nieto Zayas, Carmen; Martínez Alberquilla, Irene; Hernández Verdejo, José LuisAIM: To estimate and compare the frequency of accommodative insufficiency (AI) within the same clinical population sample depending on the type of clinical criteria used for diagnosis. Comparing the frequency within the same population would help to minimize bias due to sampling or methodological variability. METHODS: Retrospective study of 205 medical records of symptomatic subjects free of any organic cause and symptoms persisting despite optical compensation evaluated. Based on the most commonly clinical diagnostics criteria found in the literature, four diagnostics criteria were established for AI (I, II, III and IV) based on subjective accommodative tests: monocular accommodative amplitude two or more diopters below Hofstetter’s minimum value [15-(0.25×age)] (I, II, III, IV); failing monocular accommodative facility with minus lens, establishing the cut-off in 0 cycles per minute (cpm) (I) and in 6 cpm (II, III); failing binocular accommodative facility with minus lens, establishing the cut-off in 0 cpm (I) and in 3 cpm (II). RESULTS: The proportion of AI (95%CI) for criteria I, II, III and IV were 1.95% (0.04%-3.86%), 2.93% (0.31%-4.57%), 6.34% (1.90%-7.85%) and 41.95% (35.14%-48.76%) respectively, with a statistically significant difference shown between these values (χ2=226.7, P<0.001). A pairwise multiple comparison revealed that the proportion of AI detected for criterion IV was significantly greater than the proportion for the rest of the criteria (P-adjusted<0.05 in all cases). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of cases of AI within the same clinical population varies with the clinical diagnostic criteria selected. The variation is statistically significant when considering the monocular accommodative amplitude as the only clinical diagnostic sign.Item Influence of angle kappa on visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens(Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2020) Garzón Jiménez, Nuria; García Montero, María; López Artero, Esther; Albarrán Diego, Cesar Antonio; Pérez Cambrodí, Rafael José; Illarramendi Mendicute, Igor; Poyales Galán, FranciscoPurpose: To evaluate changes in angle kappa following the implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL), and to assess the postoperative outcomes of patients with different angle kappa values. Setting: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain Design: Prospective trial Methods: Sixty-three patients due to have bilateral implantation of the diffractive trifocal IOL (POD F, PhysIOL, Belgium) were included. Pupil offset was used as the best estimate of angle kappa and was measured using Pentacam (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) preoperatively and at 3-months after surgery. Postoperative refractive outcomes (sphere, cylinder, and MRSE) and visual outcomes at far, intermediate and near distance were assessed and compared between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. Quality of vision was assessed using a subjective questionnaire. Results: There was significant decrease in pupil offset post-operatively (mean: 0.197 ± 0.12 mm) compared to preoperatively (mean: 0.239 ± 0.12 mm), with a mean decrease of -0.042 mm (P = 0.0002). The same significant decrease was found for both the right eyes and left eyes, when analysed separately. No statistically significant difference was found in any of the refractive and visual acuity outcomes between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. The majority of patients (14 out of 16) complaining of significant halos had eyes with small pupil offset. Conclusion: Large pupil offset did not negatively affect visual and refractive outcomes. The tolerance to larger pupil offset might be due to the IOL optical design, with the first diffractive ring being larger than other commonly used multifocal IOLs. More studies comparing various diffractive IOL models will be useful to confirm such hypothesis.Item Pseudomyopia: A Review(Vision, 2022) García Montero, María; Felipe Márquez, Gema; Arriola Villalobos, Pedro; Garzón Jiménez, NuriaThis review has identified evidence about pseudomyopia as the result of an increase in ocular refractive power due to an overstimulation of the eye’s accommodative mechanism. It cannot be confused with the term “secondary myopia”, which includes transient myopic shifts caused by lenticular refractive index changes and myopia associated with systemic syndromes. The aim was to synthesize the literature on qualitative evidence about pseudomyopia in terms that clarify its pathophysiology, clinical presentation, assessment and diagnosis and treatment. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and the Scopus database was carried out for articles published up to November 2021, without a data limit. This review was reported following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 54 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The terms pseudomyopia and accommodation spasm have been found in most of the studies reviewed. The review has warned that although there is agreement on the assessment and diagnosis of the condition, there is no consensus on its management, and the literature describes a range of treatment.