(C) 2010 American Institute of Physics. [doi:10.1063/1.3524540]“
“PURPOSE: To compare accommodating intraocular lens (IOLs) and monofocal IOLs in restoring accommodation in cataract surgery.

SETTING: Dartmouth Medical School and Department of Ophthalmology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.

METHODS: In this metaanalysis, 2 researchers independently extracted data, assessed trial quality, and

contacted authors for missing information. Because of measurement-scale variations, outcomes were pooled for distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) as standardized mean differences Duvelisib concentration with 95% confidence intervals [Cls] and anterior displacement of the lens as weighted mean differences (95% CI).

RESULTS: The metaanalysis comprised 12 randomized controlled studies of 727 eyes. Based on 10 studies that compared DCNVA, accommodating IOLs were favored but failed the test of heterogeneity (l(2) = 94%). Pooling the 6 homogeneous trials (l(2) = 43%) showed no difference (standardized mean difference, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.25). Heterogeneity could not be explained by any characteristic of the study population or methodology. Based on 4 studies that evaluated pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, there was a significant anterior compared with the GS-1101 research buy control (weighted mean difference, 95% CI, -0.36 -0.47 to -0.24]), although the studies were heterogeneous (l(2)

= 58%). Three of 5 studies mentioning posterior capsule opacification (PCO) reported increased rates in the accommodating IOL group postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS:

There was no clear evidence of near acuity improvement despite statistically https://www.selleckchem.com/products/MK-2206.html significant pilocarpine-induced anterior lens displacement. Further randomized controlled studies with standardized methods evaluating adverse effects (eg, PCO) are needed to clarify the tradeoffs.”
“Information about the natural history of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is scarce.

This was a prospective cohort study of 160 women (mean age 56 years), whose answers in a population-based survey investigation indicated presence of symptomatic prolapse (siPOP), and 120 women without siPOP (mean age 51 years).

Follow-up questionnaire was completed by 87%, and 67% underwent re-examination according to pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system after 5 years. Among re-examining siPOP women, 47% had an unchanged POP-Q stage, 40% showed regression, and 13% showed progression. The key symptom “”feeling of a vaginal bulge”" remained unchanged in 30% of women with siPOP, 64% improved by at least one step on our four-step rating scale, and 6% deteriorated. Among control women, siPOP developed in 2%. No statistically significant relationship emerged between changes in anatomic status and changes in investigated symptoms.

Only a small proportion of women with symptomatic POP get worse within 5 years.