Search

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

PURPOSE:To evaluate postoperative visual performance and patient-reported outcomes following combined implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a trifocal IOL.METHODS:The study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing refractive lens extraction or cataract surgery with combined implantation of an EDOF IOL (dominant eye) and a trifocal IOL in the nondominant eye. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuities, defocus curves, and subjective questionnaires were evaluated 1 month postoperatively.RESULTS:The study enrolled 100 consecutive patients (200 eyes). The postoperative mean binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA were −0.08 ± 0.07, 0.13 ± 0.12, and 0.17 ± 0.11 logMAR, respectively. The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters of the refractive target was 65% and 96% with EDOF IOLs, and 76% and 99% with trifocal IOLs, respectively. Of all patients, 91% were satisfied or more than satisfied with the procedure, and 87% of patients were spectacle free for near vision. On a scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very), mean scores of 0.52 ± 0.83, 0.71 ± 0.83, and 0.34 ± 0.73 were reported for glare, halos, and starbursts. The mean daytime and nighttime Quality of Vision scores were 9.13 ± 0.91 and 7.96 ± 1.57, respectively.CONCLUSIONS:The combination of an EDOF IOL and a trifocal IOL provides good unaided visual acuity for distance and near. This IOL combination provides high postoperative satisfaction and functional vision, but some early visual side effects were reported.[[J Refract Surg. 2020;36(5):326–333.]

On 5 October 2005 the Court of First Instance' ruled on the admissibility of the so called 'Upper Austrian Law banning genetic engineering' It was the the first decision of an EU-Court to deal with the issue of co-existence between the cultivation of GMO and GMO free plants, the establishment of GMO-free areas and securing biodiversity.2 There is a fierce battle going on between some EU Member States reluctant to use GMOs and the European Commission,3 which is responsible for ensuring the proper implementation of the Community acquis relating to GMOs. As the trade partners of the EU are pointing to their obligations under international trade law,4 the judgment tackles also a controversial issue of international trade law. The Court upheld the contested decision of the Commission which had rejected the notified Austrian rules.5 Apart from considerations on the GMO issue the ruling is also important as it sets out clear limits concerning the derogation from EU harmonisation measures generally. Both the Commission and the Court found that the conditions for derogation under Article 95(5) EC Treaty were not fulfilled. Even though the Commission and the Court under the current state of Community law6 did not have any other option than to reject the Upper Austrian draft Law, the reasoning behind this finding was in many respects not very convincing.

The new Deliberate Release Directive on plant engineering was to be implemented into national law on 17 October 2002. As the EC Commission recently gave notice to Germany, that some provisions of the new German implementation law may not comply with EC law, the following article emphasises the painstaking scrutiny of the legal leeway the EU has granted to its Member States in the law of plant engineering. To facilitate the ongoing discussions on implementation in the Member States the possible provisions are divided between (from the European perspective) the mandatory and the optional. In particular, the liability rules for farmers using GMOs, the rules safeguarding biodiversity in protected zones and the good professional practice rules are both politically and legally fiercely controversial and these topics are not only covered from the legal perspective but also the scientific, as assessed by a molecular biologist.