<strong>ARVO</strong> 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group - <strong>Cornea</strong>Malvern, PA) was performed before surgery and one month after thesame, in order to obtain the postsurgical corneal tissue ablation bysubtraction. All surgeries were performed by different surgeons usingthe same microkeratome (M2 single use microkeratome, Moria Inc.,Doylestown, PA). The corneal ultrasonic pachymetry was takencentrally by the same technician. Measurement was performed oneach eye nine times and mean was reported.Results: Data from 26 patients (52 eyes) who underwent LASIKwere available for the initial analysis. We analyzed a total of 19patients (36 eyes). Seven patients were excluded because they did notcome to follow-up visits and two eyes were excluded because ofsurgical complications. The mean age of the analyzed subjects was25.89 years (range 20-42 years). The mean predicted corneal tissueablation depth was 49.11 μm (standard deviation [SD], 19.60 μm)and the mean postsurgical corneal tissue ablation depth was 61.64 μm(SD, 28.07 μm). The mean preoperative spherical equivalent was -4.07 D (SD, 1.92 D) and the mean postoperative spherical equivalentwas 0.18 D (SD, 0.73 D). We analyzed the variables under study witht test (p< 0.001).Conclusions: The postsurgical corneal tissue ablation depth wasgreater than the predicted corneal tissue ablation depth determined bythe platform used in this study, and it should be considered byrefractive surgeons in patients with thin corneas in order to avoidresidual beds of less than 300 μm.Commercial Relationships: Juan A. Curiel, None; CristinaPacheco-Del-Valle, None; Oscar Baca, None; Alejandro Babayan,None; Regina Velasco, NoneProgram Number: 3129 Poster Board Number: D0064Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMBilateral Implantation of Hydrogel <strong>Cornea</strong>l Inlays in HyperopicPresbyopesAdam J. Roy 1 , Alan J. Lang 1 , Tonya Porter 1 , Keith Holliday 1 , GuruSharma 1 , Arturo Chayet 2 , Edna Favela 1 , Enrique Barragan 3 , SandraGomez 3 . 1 R & D, ReVision Optics, Inc., Lake Forest, CA; 2 CodetVision Institute, Tijuana, Mexico; 3 Laser Ocular Hidalgo, Monterrey,Mexico.Purpose: To provide hyperopic, presbyopic patients with improvednear, intermediate, and distance vision using bilateral hydrogelcorneal inlays.Methods: Twenty-two hyperopic (mean pre-op spherical equivalent(MRSE): 0.99 D (non-dominant eye) and 0.97 D (dominant eye)[+0.25 to +1.75 D]), presbyopic (mean pre-op reading addrequirement: 1.89 D (both eyes) [+1.50 to +2.25 D]) subjects wereimplanted with 2.0 mm diameter hydrogel corneal inlays (ReVisionOptics, Inc.)* under a femtosecond corneal flap, in the non-dominanteye, followed for 3 to 6 months, and then implanted with a like inlayin the dominant eye. The Optec® 6500 Vision Tester was used torecord visual acuities. Ability to perform everyday tasks (five tasksfor each of three distance ranges) without additional visual aid wasascertained using a questionnaire. The study was performed inconformance with an IRB-approved protocol.Results: The non-dominant (NONDOM) and dominant (DOM) eyesin the same subject responded similarly to the corneal inlay. In botheyes measured separately, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) hadimproved significantly at 3 months, by an average of 5 lines of near,3 lines of intermediate, and 1 line of distance vision. Near andintermediate vision improved in 100% of the eyes. 86% of implantedNONDOM eyes and 95% of DOM eyes achieved 20/25 or better nearUCVA compared to 0% preoperatively. 77% of implantedNONDOM eyes and 86% of DOM eyes achieved 20/25 or betterintermediate UCVA compared to 0% preoperatively. Both groupshad an average improvement of 1 line distance UCVA though twosubjects lost one line of distance vision in the NONDOM eye. Theaverage distance UCVA for each eye was 20/21. At 3 months afterthe second inlay, binocularly, 95% of subjects achieved 20/25 orbetter near UCVA and intermediate UCVA, and 100% of subjectsachieved 20/20 or better distance UCVA. There was a significantimprovement in task performance and patient satisfaction withbilateral inlays in comparison to pre-op. At 3 months after the 2ndimplantation, 95% of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied withtheir overall vision.Conclusions: Bilateral implantation of the ReVision Optics cornealinlay is potentially an effective tool to improve near, intermediate,and distance vision in hyperopic presbyopes up to +1.75 D MRSE.*CAUTION: Investigational device. Limited by Federal (UnitedStates) law to investigational use.Commercial Relationships: Adam J. Roy, Revision Optics (E);Alan J. Lang, ReVision Optics (E); Tonya Porter, ReVision Optics(E); Keith Holliday, ReVision Optics (E); Guru Sharma, None;Arturo Chayet, None; Edna Favela, Revision Optics (E); EnriqueBarragan, revision optics (C); Sandra Gomez, Revision Optics (C)Program Number: 3130 Poster Board Number: D0065Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMNear Functional Range of a Near Center Hydrogel <strong>Cornea</strong>l Inlayin Presbyopic SubjectsAlan J. Lang 1 , Adam J. Roy 1 , Keith Holliday 1 , Tonya Porter 1 , GuruSharma 1 , Arturo Chayet 2 , Edna Favela 1 , Enrique Barragan 3 , SandraGomez 3 . 1 R & D, ReVision Optics, Lake Forest, CA; 2 Codet VisionInstitute, Tijuana, Mexico; 3 Laser Ocular Hidalgo, Monterrey,Mexico.Purpose: Explain with clinical data and ray-trace simulations how anintracorneal inlay provides a functional near range, independent ofage (Add) and improves intermediate VA.Methods: 192 emmetropes / low-hyperopes (MRSE: -0.50 to +1.75D), presbyopic (Add 1.50 to +2.50 D), subjects were implanted witha 2 mm diameter hydrogel corneal inlay (RaindropTM Near VisionInlay, ReVision Optics)*, in the non-dominant eye. The Optec® 6500recorded visual acuities. Everyday task performance (five tasks eachdistance) was ascertained via self-questionnaire. The studies wereeach conducted according to an IRB-approved protocol. Zemaxsimulated letter charts yielded near range for fixed VA levels, as afunction of pupil size and spectacle defocus, using the inlay effectderived from post-pre wavefront difference maps in a finite eyemodel. The inlay effect ranged from -4 D at pupil center, returning tothe unaltered anterior cornea at 4 mm diameter.Results: The mean preop uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA) islogMAR 0.51 and by 3 months mean UCNVA is logMAR 0.06(p 6points: p 2levels: p
<strong>ARVO</strong> 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group - <strong>Cornea</strong>power ≥ 2.5 D improves near task performance and VA, regardless ofage (Add), with high patient satisfaction. The small myopic shift ofdistance Rx potentially improves intermediate VA.*CAUTION: Investigational device. Limited by Federal (UnitedStates) law to investigational use.Commercial Relationships: Alan J. Lang, ReVision Optics (E);Adam J. Roy, Revision Optics (E); Keith Holliday, ReVision Optics(E); Tonya Porter, ReVision Optics (E); Guru Sharma, None;Arturo Chayet, None; Edna Favela, Revision Optics (E); EnriqueBarragan, revision optics (C); Sandra Gomez, Revision Optics (C)Program Number: 3131 Poster Board Number: D0066Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMLonger-term Stability of Refractive <strong>Cornea</strong>l Lenticule ExtractionProcedures Compared with LASIKJesper Hjortdal, Iben Bach Pedersen, Anders Ivarsen.Ophthalmology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.Purpose: Short-term follow-up studies have shown that thepredictability, efficacy, and safety of all-femtosecond laser basedcorneal refractive procedures for correction of myopia are similar toLASIK. The purpose of the present clinical quality control study wasto evaluate the longer-term stability of these procedures.Methods: 90 patients operated on both eyes with femtosecondLASIK (LASIK), femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEX), or smallincision lenticule extraction (SMILE) participated in a followexamination more than one year after surgery. All patients had beentreated for moderate to high myopia (-11.00 to -4.50 D of sphericalequivalent refraction) in both eyes. 3 months after surgery and at thefollow-up visit more than one year after surgery, uncorrected visualacuity (UCVA), manifest refraction, and best corrected visual acuity(BCVA) was measured and changes in refractions, UCVA, andBCVA were calculated.Results: The average preoperative spherical correction was -7.00 D,cylinder was -0.62 D, and spherical equivalent correction (SEQ) was-7.28 D. There were no significant differences in refractions orBCVA between the three groups before surgery. Post-operativerefractive results at 3 months after surgery are shown in Table 1.Changes in UCVA, BCVA, and SEQ were small from 3 months tomore than one year of surgery (Table 2). ANOVA tests revealed nosignificant change in SEQ over the longer-term period after the 3types of surgery, and there was no significant difference betweengroups. UCVA improved significantly over the longer-term period ineyes treated with FLEX and SMILE, but not after LASIK. Post hoctests showed that eyes operated with SMILE improved significantlymore than eyes treated with LASIK. BCVA improved in all groupsfrom 3 months to more than one year after surgery. Post hoc tests didnot reveal any significant difference between the treatments.Conclusions: Spherical equivalent refraction was stable from 3months after surgery. Uncorrected and best spectacle corrected visualacuity improved from 3 months to years after surgery. The longertermstability of the recently introduced all-femtosecond laser basedprocedures seems similar to femtosecond-LASIK, and uncorrectedvisual acuity may even improve more over time in eyes operated withSMILE compared with LASIK.Table 1. 3 months Post-OP. Mean (SD)Table 2. Longer-term changes. Mean (SD)Commercial Relationships: Jesper Hjortdal, Carl Zeiss Meditec(R); Iben Bach Pedersen, None; Anders Ivarsen, NoneProgram Number: 3132 Poster Board Number: D0067Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMModeling of Human Refractions for Refractive SurgeryGuang-ming G. Dai. R & D, Abbott Medical Optics, Milpitas, CA.Purpose: To investigate the statistical distribution of sphere andcylinder for refractive surgical candidates.Methods: Based on population statistics for 393,139,704 eyes in a2006 national survey and a refractive surgery patient database for8,246,757 eyes performed in the US until 2006, a statistical analysiswas performed. For refractive sphere, a normal distribution is areasonable measure for virgin eyes. For refractive surgicalcandidates, however, a Rayleigh distribution better represents thestatistics as emmetropic patients do not seek refractive surgery(except for presbyopes). For refractive cylinder, a normal distributionis a reasonable measure for both the virgin eyes and refractivesurgical candidates. These statistical models were used to generaterandom eyes for scientific research or commercial use.Results: One million random normal eyes and one million refractivesurgical eyes were generated based on the proposed algorithms.Roughly 79% eyes are myopic, 13% are hyperopic and 7% are mixedastigmatic. The statistics of the simulated eyes follow the statisticsassumed. This allows a “real-world” testing, or a “simulated clinicaltrial” for the development of new treatment algorithms, orverification and validation of to-be-released treatment softwareproducts, greatly speeds up the process and improves the efficiencyfor product development in a commercial environment. It may alsobe used in the vision research when a large number of eyes arerequired for statistical analysis.Conclusions: The refractions of human eyes (sphere and cylinder)follow the proposed statistical distribution based on a large nationaloptometric database. Simulation based on the statistics provides auseful means for vision research and commercial use.Commercial Relationships: Guang-ming G. Dai, Abbott MedicalOptics (E)Program Number: 3133 Poster Board Number: D0068Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMEvaluation of Limbal Ultrastructure in Twelve Year and TwentyeightYear Post-operative Keratoconic <strong>Cornea</strong>sErin Dooley 1 , Steven Gardner 1 , Sally Hayes 1 , Jonathan Harris 1 , KimNielsen 3 , Jesper Hjortdal 3 , Thomas Sorensen 2 , Nicholas Terrill 2 ,Craig Boote 1 , Keith M. Meek 1 . 1 Biophysics, Cardiff UniversitySchool of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff, United Kingdom;2 Diamond Light Source, Didcot, United Kingdom; 3 Department ofOphthalmology Aarhus University Hospital, Arhus, Denmark.Purpose: To use X-ray scattering techniques to analyse peripheralcorneal and limbal, tissue from a patient with advanced keratoconouswho underwent bilateral penetrating keratoplasty twelve and twentyeightyears prior.Methods: Peripheral cornea/limbal tissue of the enucleated corneaswas evaluated using small and wide angle X-ray scatteringtechniques at synchrotron stations I22 and I02 Diamond LightSource, Didcot, UK. The corneas were wrapped in clingfilm toprevent dehydration and placed in a purpose built Perspex and Mylarchamber during x-ray exposure. The corneas were sampled at 0.5 mmintervals in a 29 x 29 mm grid (small angle) and at 0.25 mm intervalsin a 60 x 67 and 60 x 63 grids (wide angle). Normal human corneaswere also scanned in the same manner as controls. Wide-anglepatterns were used to quantify collagen orientation and small-anglepatterns to measure fibril diameter and spacing.©2013, Copyright by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Go to iovs.org to access the version of record. For permissionto reproduce any abstract, contact the <strong>ARVO</strong> Office at arvo@arvo.org.
- Page 2 and 3:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 4 and 5:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 6 and 7:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 8 and 9:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 10:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 13 and 14:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 16 and 17:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 18 and 19:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 20 and 21:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 22 and 23:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 24 and 25:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 26 and 27:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 28 and 29:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 30 and 31:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 32 and 33:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 34 and 35:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 36 and 37:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 38 and 39:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 40 and 41:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 42 and 43:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 44 and 45:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 46 and 47:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 48 and 49:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 50 and 51:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 52 and 53:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 54 and 55:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 56 and 57:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 58 and 59:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 60 and 61:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 62 and 63:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 64 and 65:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 66 and 67:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 68 and 69:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 70 and 71:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 72 and 73:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 74 and 75:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 76 and 77:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 78 and 79:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 80 and 81:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 82 and 83:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 84 and 85:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 86 and 87:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 88 and 89:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 90 and 91:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 92 and 93:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 94 and 95:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 96 and 97:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 98 and 99:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 100 and 101:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 102 and 103:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 104 and 105:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 106 and 107:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 108 and 109:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 110 and 111:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 112 and 113:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 114 and 115:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 116 and 117:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 118 and 119:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 120 and 121:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 122 and 123:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 124 and 125:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 126 and 127:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 128 and 129:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 130 and 131:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 132 and 133:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 134 and 135:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 136 and 137:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 138 and 139:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 140 and 141:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 142 and 143:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 144 and 145:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 146 and 147:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 148 and 149:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 150 and 151:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 152 and 153:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 154 and 155:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 156 and 157:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 158 and 159:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 160 and 161: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 162 and 163: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 164 and 165: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 166 and 167: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 168 and 169: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 170 and 171: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 172 and 173: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 174 and 175: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 176 and 177: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 178 and 179: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 180 and 181: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 182 and 183: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 184 and 185: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 186 and 187: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 188 and 189: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 190 and 191: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 192 and 193: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 194 and 195: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 196 and 197: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 198 and 199: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 200 and 201: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 202 and 203: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 204 and 205: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 206 and 207: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 208 and 209: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 212 and 213: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 214 and 215: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 216 and 217: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 218 and 219: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 220 and 221: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 222 and 223: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 224 and 225: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 226 and 227: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 228 and 229: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 230 and 231: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 232 and 233: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 234 and 235: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 236 and 237: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 238 and 239: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 240 and 241: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 242 and 243: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 244 and 245: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 246 and 247: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 248 and 249: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 250 and 251: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 252 and 253: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 254 and 255: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 256 and 257: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 258 and 259: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 260 and 261:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 262 and 263:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 264 and 265:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 266 and 267:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 268 and 269:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 270 and 271:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 272 and 273:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 274 and 275:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 276 and 277:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 278 and 279:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 280 and 281:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 282 and 283:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 284 and 285:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 286 and 287:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 288 and 289:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 290 and 291:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 292 and 293:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 294 and 295:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 296 and 297:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 298 and 299:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 300 and 301:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 302 and 303:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 304 and 305:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 306 and 307:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 308 and 309:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 310 and 311:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 312 and 313:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 314 and 315:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 316 and 317:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 318 and 319:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 320 and 321:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 322 and 323:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 324 and 325:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 326 and 327:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 328 and 329:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 330 and 331:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 332 and 333:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 334 and 335:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 336 and 337:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 338 and 339:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 340 and 341:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 342 and 343:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 344 and 345:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 346 and 347:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 348 and 349:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 350 and 351:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 352 and 353:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 354 and 355:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 356 and 357:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 358 and 359:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 360 and 361:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 362 and 363:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 364 and 365:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 366 and 367:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 368 and 369:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 370 and 371:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 372 and 373:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 374 and 375:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 376 and 377:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 378 and 379:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 380 and 381:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
- Page 382 and 383:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts