Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

Modulation transfer function of implantable phakic intraocular contact lens (IPCL) for myopia and presbyopia

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the optical quality of myopic and presbyopic IPCLs with different additional powers, and to investigate the effects of pupil size on the optical quality of these IPCLs using an in-vitro modulation transfer function (MTF) measurement system.

METHODS

Linear scatter functions (LSFs) were recorded using the OPAL Vector system and an eye phantom consisting of wet cells filled with a balanced salt solution. A myopic IPCL or a presbyopic IPCL was placed in the posterior chamber of this model. The MTF was calculated from the LSF using the fast Fourier transform techniques. The effective apertures were set at 2.0 to 5.0 mm in 1.0 mm steps.

RESULTS

The in-focus MTF values of the myopic IPCL and presbyopic IPCL with additional powers of + 2.0 and + 4.0 diopters at 100 cycles/mm for an effective aperture of 3.0 mm were 43%, 27%, and 24%, respectively. The in-focus MTF value of both myopic and presbyopic IPCLs was the highest when the effective aperture was set at 3.0 mm, and it gradually worsened when the effective aperture became larger than 3.0 mm at 20, 60, and 100 cycles/mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Both myopic and presbyopic IPCLs provided excellent MTF values, but the additional power profile can deteriorate optical performance in presbyopic IPCL-implanted eyes, even with a low additional power. Pupil size can influence visual quality in IPCL-implanted eyes for both myopia and presbyopia.

Clinical outcomes and optical performance of a new segmental refractive extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens

BACKGROUND

The visual performance and the optical quality of a segmental refractive extended depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) were evaluated in a prospective, single-arm, single-center study.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients (40 eyes) after bilateral implantation of the refractive segmental EDoF Acunex Vario AN6V were included. Assessment procedure: refraction outcome, monocular and binocular uncorrected (UCVA) and distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA), defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (CS), higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and patient satisfaction were evaluated 1 and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

At 3-month follow-up, mean spherical equivalent was - 0.23 ± 0.32 D. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate and near was - 0.08 ± 0.06 logMAR at 4 m, -0.03 ± 0.06 logMAR at 66 cm and 0.16 ± 0.06 logMAR at 40 cm, respectively. The binocular defocus curve showed a VA better than 0.20 logMAR over a range from + 1.50 to - 2.45 D. Contrast sensitivity aligned with monofocal lenses, highlighting the lens's clinical value. Aberrometry showed minimal changes in corneal aberrations. NEI-RQL-42-Questionnaire showed a high patient satisfaction for daily activities and revealed reduced dependence on glasses, particularly for near and intermediate vision. The Acunex Vario AN6V demonstrated minimal dysphotopsias, making it a promising option for those seeking spectacle independence.

CONCLUSION

This segmental refractive EDoF IOL provides a high degree of spectacle independence for far and intermediate distances with functional near VA. Although inducing residual coma aberrations, it showed subjectively good results with little dysphotopsias.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was reviewed and approved by ethics committee of Charité University, Berlin, Germany, with approval number EA4/126/20.

Clinical Outcomes of a New Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Patients Undergoing Phacovitrectomy for Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and quality of life of newly generated monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) in patients diagnosed with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (IEM) following phacovitrectomy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 42 patients with IEM and cataract underwent pars plana vitrectomy. They were divided into the ICB00 group (21 patients) and the ZCB00 group (21 patients). Data collected before and after the surgery were compared between the two groups, including uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), vision-related quality of life (VRQOL), intraocular pressure, contrast sensitivity (CS), and central macular thickness (CMT).

RESULTS

The preoperative characteristics of the two groups showed no significant differences. However, at the 6-month follow-up after surgery, there were significant improvements in UDVA (p < 0.001), UIVA (p < 0.001), VRQOL (p < 0.001), CS (p < 0.001), and CMT (p < 0.001) compared to baseline. Notably, the Eyhance ICB00 group showed a significantly higher UCIVA value at 6 months post-surgery when compared to the Tecnis ZCB00 group (p = 0.001), while other parameters did not show significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The Eyhance IOL significantly improved both intermediate and distance visual acuity, with no notable difference in quality of life or CS compared to the Tecnis ZCB00 IOL after IEM removal. It appears to be a favorable choice for combined cataract and vitreoretinal surgery, offering enhanced vision for daily tasks and a promising alternative to traditional monofocal IOLs.

Cataract surgery with new monofocal intraocular lens enhanced for intermediate vision and standard monofocal intraocular lens for retinal disorder

AIM

To investigate the difference in the initial surgical results between a new monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) with enhanced intermediate vision and the standard monofocal IOL in patients with retinal disease.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with retinal disease who underwent cataract surgery due to accompanying cataracts. Types of retinal diseases were investigated and best-corrected distant visual acuity, distant uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), intermediate UCVA, near UCVA, and spherical equivalent were recorded at each visit. The surgical results were investigated at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

Seventeen eyes treated with a new monofocal IOL enhanced for intermediate vision (ICB00 group) and 18 eyes treated with the standard monofocal IOL (AAB00 group) were included in this study. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics, including the type of underlying retinal disease, between the groups. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of distant, intermediate, or near UCVA at day 1 and week 1 after surgery. However, at 1 month after surgery, the ICB00 group showed a significantly better intermediate vision improvement than the AAB00 group (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Even in patients with cataract accompanied by retinal disease, the use of the ICB00 IOL showed significant improvement in intermediate vision compared to the use of the AAB00 (standard monofocal) IOL. The ICB00 IOL might be a good option for patients with cataract and retinal disease in the era of increased intermediate vision needs in daily life.

Comparison of visual performances of enhanced monofocal versus standard monofocal IOLs in a mini-monovision approach

PURPOSE

To compare visual performance and quality of life in patients who received either monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or an enhanced monofocal IOL in a mini-monovision target approach.

BACKGROUND

Monofocal lenses are the most common intraocular IOLs employed during cataract surgery because of their relatively low cost and good performance for distance sight. However, these lenses, generally, do not exonerate patients from spectacle use for near or intermediate tasks. On the other hand, enhanced monofocal IOLs (e.g., Tecnis Eyhance®) feature optical properties providing patients with good intermediate visual outcomes. Satisfactory near visual acuity results, regardless of IOL type, may be achieved through mini-monovision. We assessed visual performance outcomes between these IOLs, in a mini-monovision approach.

METHODS

Retrospective case series of patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery at our institution with implantation of Alcon SN60WF, J&J Tecnis DCB00 or J&J Tecnis Eyhance® DIB00 with a pre-operative mini-monovision target. The postoperative spherical equivalent was measured by a Nidek® auto-refractometer. Best-uncorrected binocular visual acuity (BUBVA) at far (3 m), intermediate (66 cm), and near (40 cm) distance and binocular contrast sensitivity (100%, 25%, and 5%, all at 1 m) were measured using Snellen and Pelli-Robson charts, respectively. Visual performance in daily life was evaluated with the Cataract VF-14 quality of life survey.

RESULTS

71 patients (35 in the monofocal IOL and 37 enhanced IOL group) were enrolled. Patients implanted with enhanced IOL exhibited statistically significant better BUBVA results at 66 cm and 40 cm distances compared to patients in the monofocal group. Additionally, patients in the enhanced IOL group presented a better contrast sensitivity in lower contrast conditions (5%) than patients with monofocal IOL. The quality of life survey showed statistically significant higher scores in daily activities without spectacles for patients with enhanced IOL.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced monofocal IOLs, combined with a mini-monovision approach, provided patients with good visual performance at all tested distances, with superiority of enhanced monofocal IOLs at near and intermediate distances.

Stereoacuity and Multifocal Intraocular Lenses - a Systematic Review

Background

Among various visual functions, stereoacuity, or the ability to perceive depth, is the most sophisticated binocular function. Many publications discuss the influence of retinal image formation by multifocal intraocular lenses on glare and contrast sensitivity, but only a few present results of testing binocular vision in patients with multifocal intraocular lenses.

Objective

This article is designed to review the results of testing binocular vision in patients with multifocal intraocular lenses implanted in cataract surgery.

Methods

This article was performed based on a literature review and Internet search through scientific databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.

Results

Some reports found that patients implanted with the monofocal lens, when measured with a near addition, presented statistically significant better stereoacuity scores than those implanted with any of the multifocal intraocular lens types. When the TNO test was used for measurement, statistically significant better stereoacuity was disclosed with the refractive multifocal intraocular lens than with the diffractive-based multifocal intraocular lens design. Stereoacuity scores, even within the same types of lenses, were significantly better with the Titmus test than with the TNO test.

Conclusion

Stereoacuity is not affected by multifocality-induced retinal blur as it is by other causes of image degradation such as small residual refractive error very early opacification of ocular media or dry eye. Multifocal intraocular lenses do not cause more functional aniseikonia than would be expected with a monofocal intraocular lens. Since stereoacuity is compromised with unilateral multifocal intraocular lens implantation bilateral implantation should be attempted.

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among people with presbyopia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years of age or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence according to the GRADE classification.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven studies conducted in Europe and Turkey with a total of 331 participants. All included studies assessed visual acuity using a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR chart). Of them, six (86%) studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (the primary outcome of this review). Some studies also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 55 to 74 years. Three studies reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all of the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study examined vision-related quality of life using the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) at six months, and suggested no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOLs (MD 1.41, 95% CI -1.78 to 4.60; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Of five studies reporting information on adverse events, two studies observed no intraoperative and postoperative complications or no posterior capsular opacification at six months. One study reported that glare and halos were similar to the preoperative measurements. One study reported that 4 (20%) and 10 (50%) participants had glare complaints at 6 months in trifocal and bifocal group, respectively (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.07; 40 participants). One study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal group and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy at one year. The certainty of the evidence for adverse events was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty of evidence that compared with bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there was no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity, quality of life, and vision-related adverse effects.

Effect of Violet Light-Filtering and Manufacturing Improvements in an Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens on Visual Performance

Purpose

To assess the experimental visual performance and dysphotopsia characteristics of the new Tecnis Symfony OptiBlue extended-depth-of-focus with violet light-filtering (ZXR00V) intraocular lens (IOL) compared with the colorless Tecnis Symfony (ZXR00) IOL.

Methods

Range of vision was assessed with simulated visual acuity defocus curves, predicted by white light through focus modulation transfer function (MTF) measurements. The clinical visual acuity defocus curve of the ZXR00 IOL was used to validate the predicted range of vision. Image quality was compared by measuring white light MTF at a spatial frequency of 15 cycles per degree (c/deg) for 3 mm and 5 mm pupil diameters with optical powers of 5 D, 20 D, and 34 D using the average corneal eye (ACE) model with the average spherical and chromatic aberration of the cataract population. Effects on dysphotopsias were predicted by measurement and computer simulation of light scatter (straylight parameter) and subsequent determination of retinal veiling luminance (RVL) in vitro. Contrast enhancement under challenging light conditions was calculated based on the effects in RVL.

Results

The simulated visual acuity defocus curves and image quality outcomes were comparable between the ZXR00V and ZXR00 IOLs. The area under the straylight curve for the straylight parameter showed a 19% improvement in halo performance with ZXR00V versus ZXR00. A 12% to 17% reduction in RVL was achieved in favor of ZXR00V over ZXR00, which enhanced contrast vision by 9% to 13% under challenging light conditions.

Conclusion

The violet light-filtering technology and improved manufacturing of ZXR00V delivers a comparable range of vision and tolerance to refractive error to ZXR00 while mitigating dysphotopsias and enhancing contrast vision.

Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Importance

A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.

Objective

To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.

Data Sources

Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.

Study Selection

Based on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Descriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.

Results

This NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.

Conclusions and Relevance

For patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.

Clinical Outcomes after Bilateral Implantation of Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses

The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and extended depth of focus IOLs in Koreans. The clinical outcomes of cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of PanOptix, FineVision, Symfony, and MiniWell were evaluated. Uncorrected distant, intermediate (80 cm, 60 cm), near (40 cm) visual acuity, defocus curve, manifest refraction, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations, quality of vision, spectacle independence, and subjective satisfaction at postoperative 3 months were assessed. A total of 136 eyes in 68 patients were included in the analyses. PanOptix and FineVision performed better visual acuity compared to Symfony and MiniWell at 40 cm distance. Defocus curve showed broad range of vision in PanOptix and FineVision with visual acuity of more than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution at −2.5 diopter (D) of defocus power, while Symfony and MiniWell presented excellent intermediate vision without a dip at defocus power of −0.5 D to −1.0 D. Glare, halo, and starburst were significantly less in MiniWell compared to others. In conclusion, all four IOLs presented satisfactory clinical outcomes. PanOptix and FineVision provided good near and intermediate vision, while Symfony and MiniWell provided good intermediate vision. MiniWell induced little dysphotopsia.

Visual and satisfaction results with implantation of the trifocal Panoptix® intraocular lens in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To assess visual results (including the Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient), and satisfaction, following the implantation of PanOptix® a trifocal intraocular lens.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective cohort study. 130 eyes of 65 subjects with bilateral implantation were included. Binocular uncorrected visual acuities [distance (Binocular UDVA), intermediate (Binocular UIVA) and near (Binocular UNVA)] were measured. Also, the manifest refraction, binocular defocus curve and binocular contrast sensitivity were determined. The Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient, a new single numerical parameter based on the area under the curve of the defocus curve, was calculated. The validated Spanish CATQUEST-9SF satisfaction survey was applied.

RESULTS

Postoperative visual acuity ranges were: binocular UDVA 0.18 to 0.0 LogMAR, binocular UIVA 0.30 to 0.0 LogMAR and Binocular UNVA 0.18 to 0.0 LogMAR. The levels of contrast sensitivity both in bright light conditions (with and without glare) and low light conditions with glare, remained within the limits of normality. Under scotopic conditions without glare values below normality were found at lower spatial frequencies. The binocular defocus curve showed a plateau without a clearly evident peak. The Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient was 0.199. Two patients (3.1%) needed glasses after the procedure for near and intermediate vision. No patient manifested great visual difficulties or was dissatisfied with the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The trifocal platform showed very good results in this series of patients. 96.9% of the patients achieved independence of the glasses and expressed a high degree of satisfaction. The Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient was better than those calculated from literature, for other multifocal intraocular lenses.

Patient Satisfaction and Visual Function Following Implantation of Trifocal or Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Comparison of Visual Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with High Myopic Cataract after Implantation of AT LISA Tri 839MP and LS-313 MF30 Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To investigate the benefits of multifocal lens in patients with high myopic cataract and compare the clinical effects between AT LISA tri 839MP and MPlus LS-313 MF30 intraocular lenses (IOLs) in high myopic eyes.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 60 eyes with axial length >26 mm in 40 patients. Thirty eyes were implanted with MF30, and the remaining 30 eyes were implanted with 839MP. Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), best corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), defocus curve, modulation transfer function (MTF) curve, Strehl ratio (SR), and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

All vision outcomes were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in UDVA at 1 and 3 months postoperatively (p > 0.05). However, UIVA and UNVA were significantly better in the 839MP group (p < 0.05). The VF-14 score, especially for near vision quality, was significantly higher in the MF30 group (2.2 ± 0.9 vs. 0.8 ± 0.7; p ≤ 0.001). The SR of both groups significantly increased postoperatively (p < 0.05). All the 3-month MTF curve values (MTF 10 total, MTF 10 internal, MTF 30 total, and MTF 30 internal) were significantly better in the 839MP group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, all the high-order aberration values (coma, spherical aberration, and trefoil) were significantly greater in the MF30 group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Multifocal IOL implantation achieves good quality of distance, intermediate, and near vision in patients with high myopia, improving their quality of life. Both 839MP and MF30 IOLs can provide good distance vision, but 839MP performs better in near and intermediate vision. However, for some patients with an extra-long optic axis, MF30 may be a good choice because of its wider range of degrees.

[Pseudo-accommodative intraocular lenses]

This article reviews pseudo-accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs), providing an analysis of the terminology used in this field of ophthalmology and describing the design of modern IOLs, the technological features used to achieve pseudo-accommodation that meets the needs of patients, particularly the new extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL technology. The article presents the main types of extended depth of focus IOLs, their description, advantages and disadvantages, as well as comparison with multifocal and monofocal IOLs based on clinical studies conducted in different countries.

Age affects intraocular lens attributes preference in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to analyze the effects of age on intraocular lens (IOL) attributes preference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 4213 eyes that underwent smooth phacoemulsification and IOL implantation between January 2005 and June 2018. Patients were subdivided into six groups according to their ages, i.e.,≤40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70, 71-80, and ≥ 81 years old. The difference in preference of IOL attributes regarding age, gender, and year of surgery was analyzed separately. The analyzed IOL attributes included asphericity, astigmatism-correction, presbyopia-correction, and blue-blocking function.

RESULTS

The patients averaged 68.3 ± 11.6 years old at the time of surgery. There was no significant difference in age between males and females. There were 1980 patients (47.0%) selected aspheric IOL, 822 patients (19.5%) selected multifocal (MF) IOL, 93 patients (2.2%) selected toric IOL, and 859 patients (20.4%) selected blue-blocking IOL. Adoption of aspheric and MF IOL increased significantly during the study (P < 0.001 for both attributes). There were more young patients selected aspheric and MF IOL (P < 0.001 for both), and the change in the trend of adoption over the years was also most significant in the young group (P < 0.001 for both). The proportion of patients that selected blue-blocking IOL decreased significantly after 2011 (P < 0.001). There was no gender preference in aspheric, MF, and toric IOL selection. However, there were more male patients selected blue-blocking IOL (P = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The adoption of IOLs with emerging technologies increased significantly over the years. Younger adults tended to adopt advanced technology IOL more than the older ones.

European, Multicenter, Prospective, Non-comparative Clinical Evaluation of an Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical and safety results obtained with an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

In this European, multicenter, prospective, uncontrolled, interventional study, 77 patients were enrolled in the study, 71 patients received bilateral implantation of the Mini Well Ready EDOF IOL (SIFI S.p.A.), and 68 patients completed the study and were evaluated 2 to 4 months postoperatively. Each clinical examination recorded uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, uncorrected (UIVA) and distance-corrected (DCIVA) intermediate visual acuity, and uncorrected (UNVA), distance-corrected (DCNVA), and corrected (CNVA) near visual acuity. A defocus curve from +2.00 to -5.00 diopters (D) was obtained, contrast sensitivity and reading ability were assessed, and the perception of dysphotopsia was evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean binocular visual results showed UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA values of -0.01 ± 0.15, 0.03 ± 0.10, and 0.10 ± 0.11 logMAR, respectively. Mean binocular defocus curve demonstrated a visual acuity of 0.30 logMAR or better from +2.00 to -3.00 D. Mean photopic contrast sensitivity values were 1.86, 2.18, 1,97, 1.51, and 1.17 at 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, 12.0, and 18.0 cycles per degree, respectively. A fluent reading speed of 80 words per minute was reached at 0.5 logRAD by 95.31% of patients without distance correction. The mean halo size was 33.06 ± 14.25, mean halo intensity was 38.00 ± 18.51, mean glare size was 23.85 ± 10.43, and mean glare intensity was 42.23 ± 13.22. One postoperative complication, a moderate photophobia, was observed and classified as related to the lens.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mini Well Ready EDOF IOL provides good visual acuity across various distances and functional reading ability provided at a near range, and delivers an enhanced contrast sensitivity while causing a low incidence of photic phenomena. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(7):426-434.].

Objective and subjective evaluation of trifocal diffractive intraocular Lens after cataract extraction with phacoemulsification: a prospective clinical study

Background

This study aimed to assess visual outcomes, quality of vision and patients’ satisfaction of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens after cataract surgery with phacoemulsification.

Results

The study included 36 eyes that underwent implantation of trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). The residual mean postoperative spherical equivalent was − 0.40 ± 0.29 diopters. Mean Uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.80 ± 0.16 decimal (snellen equivalent 25 ft) while mean Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was 0.82 ± 0.31 decimal (snellen equivalent 25 ft) and mean Uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA) was 0.87 ± 0.20 decimal (snellen equivalent 23 ft). In defocus curve, there was infinitesimal gradual change between the three foci. Contrast sensitivity was just below the inferior limit of normal.

Conclusion

Trifocal diffractive IOL created a true intermediate focus proved by VA and defocus curve and better quality of vision assessed by contrast sensitivity and high order aberration. Moreover, it was safe and effective for correcting distance and near vision in these patients. Most of the patients were very satisfied and achieved spectacle independence.

Trial registration

Registration number and date: NCT04465279 on July 10, 2020.

Extended Depth of Focus Versus Monofocal IOLs: Objective and Subjective Visual Outcomes

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the objective and subjective outcomes between bilateral implantation of the extended depth of focus (EDOF) Mini Well intraocular lens (IOL) and the aspheric monofocal Mini-4-Ready IOL (both SIFI S.p.A., Catania, Italy).

METHODS

This prospective comparative study included 25 patients (50 eyes) bilaterally implanted with an EDOF Mini Well IOL (EDOF group) and 25 patients (50 eyes) bilaterally implanted with a Mini-4-Ready IOL (monofocal group). Three-month follow-up data included corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity at 4 m and 80, 67, and 40 cm. Defocus curves, subjective and objective contrast sensitivity, and objective optical quality (modulation transfer function cutoff and Strehl ratio calculated with Optical Quality Analysis System [OQAS]; Visiometrics SL, Terrassa, Spain), halometry, and reading performance were measured. Subjective visual quality was evaluated based on National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 (NEI RQL-42) scores.

RESULTS

Postoperative uncorrected and corrected monocular and binocular intermediate and near visual acuity was significantly better in the EDOF group (P < .001). No differences were observed for distance visual acuity (P ⩾ .312). Defocus curve outcomes for myopic values were better in the EDOF group (P < .001). No significant differences were found in hyperopic (obtained in steps of +0.50 diopters [D] from emmetropia to 1.50 D) values (P ⩾ .095), contrast sensitivity curves (P ⩾ .087), or OQAS outcomes (P ⩾ .138). Halometric values were significantly better in the monofocal group (P < .05). There was a correlation between mean keratometry values and intermediate/near visual acuity. Significantly better NEI RQL-42 subscale scores for near vision, far vision, activity limitations, glare, dependence on correction, and suboptimal correction were noted in the EDOF group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate and near visual acuity was better after EDOF IOL than after aspheric monofocal IOL implantation while maintaining similar levels of visual quality, except for halo perception. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(4):214-222.].

Metric-Based Visual Acuity and Defocus Curve Simulation of Two Multifocal Intraocular Lens Models

Purpose

To predict clinical defocus curve performance of the PanOptix intraocular lens (IOL) model TFNT00, a population-based image quality metric was applied to a pseudophakic eye model.

Methods

Visual acuity (VA) was simulated using a 2-surface reduced eye model. For each virtual eye, the derived corneal surface was combined with scaled IOL surface. Corneal power and aberration, anterior chamber depth, and pupil size were iterated using a Monte-Carlo approach. Image quality of the IOLs was assessed using the total aberration map to compute the amplitude point spread function. A diffraction-normalized light-in-the-bucket metric was calculated for each virtual eye for defocuses from −3.5 D to +1.0 D (step size 0.25 D) and transformed to VAs and defocus curves. Simulated VA for the ReSTOR +3.0 D lens was used to generate a calibration function by linear regression correlation of simulated data with clinical VA data. Simulated TFNT00 VA was then validated by comparing defocus curves to clinical TFNT00 data.

Results

From −3.5 D to +1.0 D, the simulated defocus curve was generally consistent with the defocus curve from the TFNT00 clinical trial. The mean absolute difference was 0.022 logMAR (~1 letter) for simulated VA versus clinical trial VA.

Conclusion

IOL image quality can be assessed using a population-based virtual eye model to simulate VA and predict clinical performance. Computational modeling and simulation can be applied to future IOL development before clinical trials are conducted.

Comparative analysis of objective and subjective outcomes of two different intraocular lenses: trifocal and extended range of vision

Objective

To evaluate objective and subjective outcomes after bilateral implantation of two different multifocal intraocular lenses, which correct pseudophakic presbyopia in an adequate and homogeneous population court.

Methods and analysis

Fifty patients were evaluated at 3 months after bilateral implantation, at the Eye Clinic of University of Verona and at the Carones Ophthalmology Center Milano, as follows: Tecnis Symfony (25 patients), Alcon PanOptix (25 patients). Main outcomes were uncorrected and best-corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and BCVA) at 4 m, 60 cm (best distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (BDCIVA) and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity), 40 cm (best distance corrected near visual acuity (BDCNVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA)), objective refractive outcome, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) cut-off), optical quality (Strehl ratio), aberrometry (root mean square RMS 4 mm), subjective quality of life (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life score (NEI-RQL-42 score) test).

Results

Symfony and PanOptix showed BCVA and UDVA comparable results. Symfony presented significant better outcomes at BDCIVA (p=0.001), while PanOptix showed better performances at BDCNVA and UNVA (p=0.01). Symfony achieved better results in RMS 4 mm (p=0.024) and in MTF cut-off (p=0.041). In the questionnaire NEI-RQL-42, PanOptix presented better scores in 'near vision' and 'spectacles independence', whereas Symfony in 'symptoms' and 'clarity of vision'.

Conclusion

Both intraocular lenses are valid options to avoid pseudophakic presbyopia, even though they present different features which make them unique. Symfony allows patients to achieve a better objective and subjective quality of vision and contrast sensitivity; PanOptix provides better outcomes in near vision and spectacles independence requirements.

Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses

Objective (aim): to test the refractive and visual outcomes and the quality of vision after the bilateral implantation of three different multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in patients with age-related cataract. Methods: In this retrospective, comparative study including 90 eyes of 45 cataract patients, bilateral implantation of either the hydrophilic trifocal Liberty® 677MY capsular bag IOL, the hydrophilic AT LISA® tri 839M lens, or the hydrophobic AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® IOL was performed during routine cataract surgery. Refractive outcomes, visual acuities (VA) for far, intermediate and near distances, as well as visual quality, dysphotopic events and spectacle use were evaluated six months postoperatively. Results: VA curves were similar for the three MIOLs, however the Liberty lens seemed to be superior for far and near, while AT LISA tri provided somewhat better VA in the intermediate range. Refractive correction was the most effective with the Liberty IOL (p=0.0131). Dysphotopic phenomena were usually perceived in low light conditions. Their frequency was lower with the AT LISA tri and Liberty lenses. Symptoms were significantly less disturbing for patients implanted with the Liberty lens, two-thirds of AT LISA tri and Liberty patients, while only 57% of PanOptix patients achieved spectacle independence. Conclusions: All examined MIOLs were found to be safe and efficient in presbyopia-correction of cataract patients, however different models had different advantages. The vision preferences of each patient should always be taken into consideration when choosing a MIOL, and the possible occurrence of dysphotopic events should be also clearly communicated in each case. Abbreviations: ACD = Anterior chamber depth, ANOVA = Analysis of variance, AXL = Axial length, CDVA = Corrected distance visual acuity, CYL = Cylinder; Cylindric refraction, D = Diopter, IOL = Intraocular lens, K1; K2 = Keratometry values, MIOL = Multifocal intraocular lens, n = Number of cases, n.a. = Not applicable, Postop = Postoperative, QoV = Quality of Vision, SD = Standard deviation, SEQ = Spherical equivalent, SPH = Sphere; Spherical refraction, UDVA = Uncorrected distance visual acuity, UIVA = Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, UNVA = Uncorrected near visual acuity, VA = Visual acuity.

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among participants with presbyopia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 September 2019. We searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles and the abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) for the years 2005 to 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies conducted in Europe with a total of 175 participants. All five studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (primary outcome of the review), while some also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 58 to 64 years. Only one study reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). In two studies, the investigators observed that participants' satisfaction or spectacle independence may be higher in the trifocal group at six months, although another study found no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction or spectacle independence between groups. Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Two studies reported information on adverse events at one year. One study reported that participants showed no intraoperative or postoperative complications, while the other study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy. The certainty of the evidence was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty of evidence that compared to bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there is no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity and quality of life.

Optical Coherence Tomography: Critical Tool to Manage Expectations after Cataract Extraction

Purpose of Review

To review evidence on the utility of spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) in evaluating retinal structure prior cataract surgery and highlight new technologies that can assess retinal function perioperatively.

Findings

SD-OCT detected clinically unsuspected macular pathology in 4.6-25% of individuals in the pre-operative cataract evaluation. The most common findings were epiretinal membrane and macular degeneration with frequencies that varied by population studied. These conditions have been associated with complication after surgery (e.g. macular edema, visual dissatisfaction). As such, findings on SD-OCT may impact the informed consent process, alter IOL selection, and provide realistic postoperative vision expectations. Other technologies that assess retinal function, such as microperimetry and multifocal ERG are beginning to be studied but their utility in the pre-operative cataract evaluation is not yet known.

Summary

SD-OCT should be incorporated as a routine test prior to surgery to manage patient expectations and assist with optimal IOL selection, as even individuals with a seemingly normal clinical exam may have macular pathology. SD-OCT is the most established method for evaluating retinal anatomy and offers the benefits of a reduction in cases with missed macular pathology and fewer postoperative visual surprises.

Ray propagation imaging and optical quality evaluation of different intraocular lens models

PURPOSE

Ray propagation visualization and optical performance analysis of four different intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

In this laboratory study, four IOLs with different optical designs were assessed: a monofocal AcrySof IQ SN60WF [Alcon], a diffractive-refractive bifocal AcrySof IQ Restor SN6AD1 [Alcon], a diffractive trifocal AcrySof IQ PanOptix TFNT00 [Alcon], and a diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) Symfony ZXR00 [Johnson&Johnson]. An experimental set-up with a water bath containing 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic green laser light (532 nm) was used to visualize the propagation of light rays. Also, the optical performance of the IOLs was evaluated by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at a pupil sizes of 3.0 and 4.5 mm on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II (Trioptics GmbH, Germany).

RESULTS

Both the diffractive-refractive bifocal IOL and the EDOF IOL showed two defined foci for distance and near vision. In the diffractive trifocal IOL, three distinct foci for distance, intermediate, and near vision could be visualized.

CONCLUSIONS

The ray propagation visualization technique allows a qualitative assessment and comparison of light energy distribution between different IOL models. The measured Through-Focus Response (TFR) quantitatively confirmed the evaluated ray propagation behavior.

Patient selection to optimize near vision performance with a low-addition trifocal lens

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of ocular biometric variables on the visual performance achieved with a low addition trifocal intraocular lens (MIOL).

METHODS

Retrospective observational study including 34 eyes. Preoperative measured variables included mean corneal power (Km), corneal regular astigmatism (RA), anterior chamber depth (ACD), axial length (AXL), total irregular astigmatism (IA), spherical aberration (SA) and distance from pupil center to vertex normal (µ). Same variables were retrieved from the three month visit follow-up in addition to the actual lens position (ALP), the calculated effective addition (EA), the IOL centration from vertex normal (d), and the visual acuity defocus curve. The area under the defocus curve was computed along the total curve (TAUC) and ranges for far (FAUC), intermediate (IAUC) and near vision (NAUC). The sample was split in two groups of 17 eyes with TAUCs above and below the mean, and the differences among groups for different ocular parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

The group of eyes above TAUC of 2.03 logMAR*m-1 showed significantly lower Km and greater AXL and SA. Km was negatively correlated with TAUC and NAUC. NAUC was negatively correlated with IA and positively with d. A multiple lineal regression model including Km, d, and IA predicted NAUC (r-square = 34%). No significant differences between IA and SA were found between preoperative and postoperative values but µ significantly decreased after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean corneal power, irregular astigmatism, and centration from vertex normal should be considered for optimizing the near visual performance with this MIOL.

Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye

Importance

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP).

Objective

To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings.

Results

From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines.

Conclusions and Relevance

The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes between Echelette Extended Range of Vision and Diffractive Bifocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of echelette extended range of vision (ERV) and diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

This is a prospective, consecutive, nonrandomized clinical trial. Seventy-three eligible patients (109 eyes) received the implantation of echelette ERV IOL (Tecnis Symfony ZXR00) or diffractive bifocal IOL (Tecnis ZMB00). 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery, visual acuities at different distances were examined. At 3 months, defocus curves, contrast sensitivities (CSs) with and without glare, optic path difference (OPD) scans, and questionnaires were evaluated. Regression analyses were applied to discover influence factors on postoperative vision.

Results

ZXR00 showed better distance (P < 0.05) and intermediate (P < 0.001) visual acuities, while ZMB00 was better at distance-corrected near visual acuity (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses indicated that worse intermediate (P < 0.001) and near vision (P=0.013) of ZMB00 might occur in patients with longer axial length. ZXR00 demonstrated smoother defocus curve and higher CSs. Superior modulation transfer function (MTF) and higher Strehl ratio (P < 0.05) were shown in ZXR00. In questionnaire evaluation, ZXR00 received better outcomes in self-reported vision, Visual Function-14 (VF-14) questionnaire, Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, satisfaction, and recommendation grades. Spectacle dependence did not differ between ZXR00 and ZMB00 statistically.

Conclusion

ZXR00 proved to be remarkable in distance and intermediate vision, defocus curve smoothness, CSs, and visual comfort, while ZMB00 achieved better near vision. ZXR00 may attain better near vision if postoperative SE remains slightly negative. Patients with relatively longer axial length might receive less favorable intermediate and near vision after ZMB00 implantation. This trial is registered with ChiCTR-ONC-17011119.

Prospective comparative study of tolerance to refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population

Background

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of extended depth of focus (EDOF) and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) that share identical aspheric platform and compare their visual acuity tolerance to postoperative refractive errors.

Methods

This non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 120 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of either Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 60 eyes of 30 patients) or Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (EDOF group: 60 eyes of 30 patients). Monocular and binocular visual outcomes, changes in refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and perception of photic phenomena (Halo & Glare Simulator; Eyeland Design Network, Vreden, Germany) were evaluated 3 months postoperatively. To compare the refractive tolerance, each group was divided into three subgroups according to the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent (SE).

Results

In the EDOF group, the mean 3-months postoperative monocular UDVA, intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were 0.03 ± 0.07, 0.09 ± 0.15, and 0.24 ± 0.16 logMAR, respectively. A total of 100, 96.55, and 68.97% of eyes in the EDOF group achieved binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA values of 0.20 logMAR or better, respectively. In respect to refractive tolerance, the EDOF group showed higher SE values and statistically significantly better mean UDVA than the monofocal group in all subgroups, with UDVA of − 0.013 and 0.028 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.037), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within ±0.50 D, UDVA of 0.004 and 0.048 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.046), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within − 1.00 D, and UDVA of 0.020 and 0.083 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.026), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was more than − 1.00 D. The mean patient satisfaction scores for spectacle-free distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were 86.0, 85.0, and 66.0, respectively.

Conclusions

The EDOF IOL provided excellent postoperative visual outcomes in far and intermediate distances, with high patient satisfaction rate. Regarding the postoperative refractive tolerance to SE, the Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better tolerance to residual postoperative refractive error than the monofocal IOL with the same material and optical platform.

[Optical quality of three trifocal intraocular lens models : An optical bench comparison]

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of the optical quality of different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) is important in customized patient care.

OBJECTIVE

Different trifocal IOL were compared regarding their optical quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the FineVision (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium), the AT LISA tri 839MP (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany), and the AcrySofIQ PanOptix (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) with a power of +21D for the distance using the OptiSpheric IOL PRO optical bench (Trioptics, Wedel, Germany). The additions for the near and intermediate distances were as follows: +3.5D/+1.75D (FineVision), +3.33D/+1.66D (AT LISA tri), and + 3,25D/+ 2,17D (PanOptix). We evaluated the modulation transfer function (MTF) at a spatial frequency of 50lp/mm and the Strehl ratio using 3‑ (photopic) and 4.5-mm (mesopic) apertures.

RESULTS

The MTF at 50 lp/mm (FineVision/AT Lisa tri/PanOptix) at the far focus was 0.373/0.399/0.400 (3-mm aperture) and 0.512/0.311/0.243 (4.5-mm aperture). At the intermediate focus, the MTF was 0.162/0.147/0.153 (3-mm aperture) and 0.092/0.125/0.137 (4.5-mm aperture). The MTF at the near focus was 0.229/0.192/0.404 (3-mm aperture) and 0.217/0.212/0.169 (4.5-mm aperture). The Strehl ratio was 0.335/0.298/0.370 (3-mm aperture) and 0.243/0.180/0.270 (4.5-mm aperture) at the far focus. At intermediate distances, the Strehl ratio was 0.189/0.185/0.162 (3-mm aperture) and 0.099/0.097/0.114 (4.5-mm aperture). The Strehl ratio was 0.305/0.283/0.464 (3-mm aperture) and 0.177/0.181/0.155 (4.5-mm aperture) at the near focus.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of the three trifocal IOL models at the optical bench could show distinct peaks at the far, intermediate, and near focus. The results were comparable in terms of optical performance.

Comparison of postoperative visual performance between bifocal and trifocal intraocular Lens based on randomized controlled trails: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical performance of bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials was conducted.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature retrieval of PubMed, Science Direct and EMBASE was performed in this systematic review. Clinical outcomes included visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were 8 RCTs included in this study. The difference of uncorrected near VA (UNVA) between the bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs had no significance [MD = 0.02, 95%CI: (- 0.03,0.06)]. There was no significant difference in the distant-corrected near VA (DCNVA) with MD of 0.04 [95%CI (- 0.02, 0.10)]. Compared with trifocal group, the uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) [MD = 0.09,95%CI:(0.01,0.17)] was significantly worse in the bifocal group. No difference was found in distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA) [MD = 0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.04, 0.23)] between two groups. Analysis on AT LISA subgroup indicated the bifocal group had worse intermediate VA than trifocal group (AT LISA tri 839 M) [MD = 0.18, 95%CI: (0.12, 0.24) for UIVA and MD = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.13, 0.25) for DCIVA]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the uncorrected distance VA (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [MD = 0.01, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.04) for UDVA; MD = 0.00, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.01) for CDVA]. The postoperative refraction of bifocal group was similar to that of trifocal group [MD = -0.08, 95% CI: (- 0.19, 0.03) for spherical equivalent; MD = -0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.21, 0.03) for cylinder; MD = -0.09, 95% CI: (- 0.27, 0.08) for sphere]. No difference was found for spectacle independence, posterior capsular opacification (PCO) incidence and patient satisfaction between bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs. [RR = 0.89, 95% CI: (0.71, 1.12) for spectacle independence; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: (0.50, 6.54) for PCO incidence; RR = 0.98, 5% CI: (0.86, 1.12) for patient satisfaction].

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving trifocal IOLs, especially AT LISA tri 839 M, have a better intermediate VA than those receiving bifocal IOLs. Near and distance visual performance, spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction of bifocal IOLs were similar to those of trifocal IOLs.

Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Multifocal IOLs with Other Types of IOLs: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

To compare the clinical performance of refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) with spherical monofocal, accommodating, and bifocal IOLs.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Web of Science up to February 2017 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies. Main outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), MTF, Strehl ratio, and residual sphere and cylinder.

Results

Mplus provided significantly worse UDVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.13, P=0.008), but significantly better UIVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001), spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.12, P < 0.0001), and accommodating IOLs (WMD: −0.21, P < 0.00001). Mplus provided significantly worse UNVA than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.07, P < 0.00001), but significantly better UNVA than spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: −0.19, P < 0.00001). Mplus resulted in significantly higher HOAs than high-add bifocal IOLs (WMD: 0.38, P < 0.00001) and spherical monofocal IOLs (WMD: 0.51, P=0.0004). Mplus provided a significantly lower MTF cut-off and Strehl ratio than other type of IOLs.

Conclusion

The Mplus IOLs perform best regarding intermediate visual acuity whereas they lack in distance visual acuity compared to monofocal IOLs and near visual acuity compared to bifocal IOLs. These results may be due to structure of Mplus IOLs resulting in higher-order aberrations.

Clinical outcomes following trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation for age-related cataract in China

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate visual, refractive and patient satisfaction outcomes following implantation of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL).

Patients and methods

This prospective, consecutive study included patients undergoing lens phacoemulsification of cataract and implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP). Visual outcomes, including near, intermediate and distance visual acuity (VA), refractive error, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve and patient satisfaction were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively.

Results

Thirty IOLs were implanted in 26 patients. Distance VA improved significantly from 0.70±0.45 to 0.08±0.11 logMAR (p<0.0001) 1 week postoperatively, and to 0.07±0.13 logMAR (p<0.0001) at 1 month and 0.05±0.10 logMAR (p<0.0001) at 3 months. Uncorrected near and intermediate VA, as well as corrected near, intermediate and distance VA, were stable and maintained during the follow-up period. Preoperative anterior chamber depth demonstrated an association with effective adjustment of postoperative spherical equivalent using a regression formula (p=0.007). No significant differences were observed for VA at defocus curves of 0 to −3 D. Contrast sensitivity at each spatial frequency improved significantly at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months under photopic and photopic with glare conditions. Under mesopic and mesopic with glare conditions, significant differences were observed postoperatively at low and medium spatial frequencies. Patients reported a high level of satisfaction and an absence of glare or halo 3 months postoperatively.

Conclusion

In this study, the trifocal diffractive IOL provided excellent visual performance at all distances and improved contrast sensitivity under different conditions, resulting in high levels of patient satisfaction and spectacle independence in Chinese patients.

Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To compare visual and contrast sensitivity (CS) outcomes, reading skills, and spectacle independence in patients implanted with two models of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL.

METHODS

This non-randomized prospective series of cases included 120 eyes of 60 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of three different IOLs: the ERV IOL Tecnis Symfony (40 eyes) (Abbott Medical Optics), the trifocal IOLs PanOptix IQ (40 eyes) (Alcon), and AT LISA tri 839MP (40 eyes) (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Visual results, photopic and mesopic CS, binocular reading skills (MNREAD charts), and patient satisfaction were evaluated 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity. The Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better mesopic intermediate visual outcomes than the two trifocal IOLs (p < 0.05 vs AT LISA). Under photopic conditions, AT LISA tri 839MP and PanOptix IQ showed better near visual outcomes compared with the ERV IOL (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). The Tecnis Symfony IOL provided significantly better photopic and mesopic CS outcomes than the other IOL models (p < 0.001). Reading skills were not significantly different between the three IOL models (p > 0.05). Less patients implanted with the two trifocal IOLs required a near addition than patients with the ERV IOL.

CONCLUSIONS

All the tested IOLs provided good visual outcome, reading performance, and spectacle independence after cataract surgery. While trifocal IOLs gave better near visual acuity results, the ERV IOL provided better contrast sensitivity.

Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs).

Methods

Three hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in uncorrected and distance-corrected logMAR distance, intermediate and near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), presence of dysphotopsia, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were analyzed.

Results

Postoperative VA in the hybrid (OptiVis) group was improved in all distances (p < 0.001). OptiVis acted superiorly to monofocal IOLs in UNVA and DCNVA (p < 0.001 for both) and to refractive ones in DCNVA (p < 0.005). Distance, mesopic, without glare CS in OptiVis was lower than in the monofocal group and similar to other MFIOLs. No differences in dysphotopsia pre- and postoperatively and spectacle independence in near for OptiVis and refractive MFIOLs were detected. OptiVis patients were more satisfied than those with monofocal IOLs (p=0.015).

Conclusions

After cataract surgery, patients with OptiVis improved VA in all distances. Near and intermediate VA was better than monofocal, and DCNVA was better than the refractive group. CS was lower in OptiVis than in the monofocal group, but there was no difference between MFIOLs. Patient satisfaction was higher in OptiVis than in the monofocal group. This trial is registered with NCT03512626.

Visual outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the extended range of vision intraocular lens: A prospective study

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to analyze the objective and subjective visual outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the extended range of vision intraocular lens (EROV IOL), the Tecnis Symfony.

Methods:

This was a prospective interventional case series conducted at a tertiary eye care hospital in South India. The study included patients with bilateral implantation of EROV IOLs. The uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for distance, intermediate, and near vision was recorded at 6 weeks and 6 months’ postoperative visit. A subjective questionnaire was administered to assess spectacle independence, photic phenomenon, and overall satisfaction. All data were recorded using Microsoft Excel worksheet. The analyses were performed using SPSS for windows software.

Results:

Our study included fifty patients with bilateral implantation of EROV IOLs. The mean age was 59.84 ± 11.68 years. The mean uncorrected binocular distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (in standard decimal equivalent) was 0.89,0.99 and 0.99 respectively, at 6 months’ postoperative visit. Ninety-six percent of the patients did not require spectacles for distance and 98% of the patients were free from spectacles for intermediate and near vision. 94% of our patients perceived no or minimal photic phenomena such as glare and halos. The mean subjective patient satisfaction score (out of 10) for distance, intermediate, and near was 9, 10, and 9, respectively.

Conclusion:

The EROV IOLs demonstrated high levels of spectacle independence for distance, intermediate, and near vision. The incidence of photic phenomena observed was minimal with a high level of patient satisfaction.

Comparison of Reading Speed after Bilateral Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Purpose

To evaluate and compare visual acuity and reading speed for Korean language between a diffractive bifocal and trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) of the same material and haptic design.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of the patients who had undergone bilateral cataract surgery with bifocal IOLs (AT LISA 801) on the both eyes (bifocal group) and trifocal IOLs (AT LISA tri 839 MP, trifocal group). The main outcome measures were the uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (uncorrected distance visual acuity [UCDVA], uncorrected intermediate visual acuity [UCIVA], and uncorrected near visual acuity [UCNVA]) and corrected distance, near, and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (corrected distance visual acuity [CDVA], corrected near visual acuity [CNVA], and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity [DCIVA]) at last postoperative follow-up month. Reading speeds for Korean language were measured to check near visual function.

Results

Fourteen eyes (7 patients) were included in the bifocal group and 32 eyes of 16 patients in the trifocal group. There were no statistical differences between the two groups with respect to UCDVA, UCNVA, CDVA, and CNVA. However, UCIVA (0.35 vs. 0.22 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], p < 0.01) and DCIVA (0.34 vs. 0.20 logMAR, p < 0.01) were significantly better in the trifocal group than in the bifocal group. The mean reading speed for logMAR 0.5 optotype (point 10) was 86.50 words per minute (wpm) in the bifocal group and 81.48 wpm in the trifocal group without a significant difference (p = 0.70).

Conclusions

Trifocal IOLs provided the same level of distance and near visual acuity and reading speed as that of bifocal IOLs with better intermediate visual acuity.

Comparison of two laboratory-based systems for evaluation of halos in intraocular lenses

Purpose

Multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) can be associated with unwanted visual phenomena, including halos. Predicting potential for halos is desirable when designing new multifocal IOLs. Halo images from 6 IOL models were compared using the Optikos modulation transfer function bench system and a new high dynamic range (HDR) system.

Materials and methods

One monofocal, 1 extended depth of focus, and 4 multifocal IOLs were evaluated. An off-the-shelf optical bench was used to simulate a distant (>50 m) car headlight and record images. A custom HDR system was constructed using an imaging photometer to simulate headlight images and to measure quantitative halo luminance data. A metric was developed to characterize halo luminance properties. Clinical relevance was investigated by correlating halo measurements to visual outcomes questionnaire data.

Results

The Optikos system produced halo images useful for visual comparisons; however, measurements were relative and not quantitative. The HDR halo system provided objective and quantitative measurements used to create a metric from the area under the curve (AUC) of the logarithmic normalized halo profile. This proposed metric differentiated between IOL models, and linear regression analysis found strong correlations between AUC and subjective clinical ratings of halos.

Conclusion

The HDR system produced quantitative, preclinical metrics that correlated to patients’ subjective perception of halos.

Fundamentals of Presbyopia: visual processing and binocularity in its transformation

Background

The accommodation has considerable interactions with the pupil response, vergence response and binocularity. The transformation of visual reception processing and the changes of the binocular cooperation during the presbyopia development are still poorly studied. So, the regularities of visual system violation in the presbyopia formation need to be characterized. This study aims to reveal the transformation of visual reception processing and to determine the role of disturbances in binocular interactions in presbyopia formation.

Methods

This study included 60 people with emmetropic refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity 1.0 or higher (decimal scale), normal color perception, without concomitant ophthalmopathology. The first group consisted of 30 people (from 18 to 27 years old) without presbyopia, the second cohort comprised 30 patients (from 45 to 55 years old) with presbyopia. The eyeball anatomy and optics were evaluated using ultrasound biomicroscopy, aberrometry, and pupillometry. The functional state of the visual system was investigated under monocular and binocular conditions. The registration of the disparate fusional reflex limits was performed by the original technic using a diploptic device which facilitated investigation of the binocular interaction under natural conditions without the accommodation response, but with the different vergence load. The disparate fusional reflex was analyzed using the proximal and distal fusion borders, and the convergence and divergence fusion borders. The calculation of the area of binocularity field was performed in cm².

Results

The presbyopia formation is characterized by a change in an intraocular anatomy, optics, visual processing, and binocularity. The processes of binocular interaction inhibition make a significant contribution to the misalignment of the visual perception. The modification of the proximal, distal and convergence fusion borders was determined. It was revealed that 87% of the presbyopic patients had binocularity shortage, whereas the reduction of binocularity field area in extreme grade was seen in 6% of cases.

Conclusions

The presbyopia formation is accompanied by a significant reorganization of the visual system activity and by the creation of the new visual processing interactions. These data may be useful in presbyopia surgery.

Myopic Shift after Implantation of a Novel Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Korean Eyes

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of cataract surgery using novel diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in Koreans.

Methods

This was a retrospective, consecutive, interventional study of cataract surgery using POD FineVision IOL implantation. Complete ophthalmologic examinations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. Defocus curves were assessed over a range of +1.5 to −4.0 diopters in 0.5-diopter steps at one month postoperatively. Uncorrected distant visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, corrected distant visual acuity, distant-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and distant-corrected near visual acuity were assessed one month postoperatively, and manifest refraction was performed during every visit.

Results

The study analyzed 31 eyes in 20 patients. There were statistically significant improvements in uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and distance-corrected near visual acuity (p < 0.001). The final postoperative refractive outcomes showed statistically significant myopic shifts compared to the target refraction based on SRK/T, SRK-II, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formulas (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

POD FineVision IOLs provide stable visual restoration with improvements of near and intermediate vision in presbyopic eyes. POD FineVision IOLs show myopic shift in a Korean population; therefore, surgeons should be cautious when selecting IOL power in such patients.

Monovision Versus Multifocality for Presbyopia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Refractive surgery in presbyopia tends to achieve spectacle independence with minimal optical disturbances. We compared monovision to multifocality procedures regarding these outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published (till November 21, 2016) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any monovision to any multifocality method or comparing different monovision/multifocality methods to each other that enabled direct or indirect comparisons between particular monovision and particular multifocality procedures in presbyopic patients undergoing cataract-related or unrelated surgery in respect to spectacle independence, unaided binocular visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Three trials comparing monovision (monofocal lenses, LASIK) to multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs; Isert refractive or Tecnis diffractive) and 6 comparing other MFIOLs to Tecnis were included (1-12 months duration). Spectacle independence. All reporting trials were of sufficient quality. Directly, pseudophakic monovision was inferior to Isert (1 trial, N = 75, RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.80) and Tecnis (1 trial, N = 211, RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.52) in cataract patients, and LASIK was comparable to Tecnis (1 trial, N = 100, RR = 0.93, 0.78-1.10) in refractive surgery. In network meta-regression (6 trials, 14 arms) pseudophakic monovision in cataract patients was inferior to Tecnis. Indirect data suggest also that it is inferior (ReZoom refractive, TwinSet diffractive) or tends to be inferior (Array refractive) to other MFIOLs. LASIK was comparable to Tecnis in refractive surgery. Indirect data suggest also that it tends to superiority vs. ReZoom or Array refractive MFIOLs. Adverse events. No pooling was possible (heterogeneity of assessment and reporting). One quality direct RCT indicated less glare/dazzle with pseudophakic monovision vs. Tecnis in cataract patients. Unaided VA and CS data were burdened with heterogeneity (assessment, reporting) and insufficient quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized comparisons of monovision to multifocality are scarce. Existing estimates regarding spectacle independence (imprecision, indirectness) and particularly regarding unaided VA and CS (assessment/reporting heterogeneity, bias, imprecision, indirectness) are burdened with uncertainty. Dysphotopsia is less common with monovision, but estimate uncertainty is high (bias, imprecision).

Bilateral implantation of +3.0 D multifocal toric intraocular lenses: results of a US Food and Drug Administration clinical trial

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of apodized diffractive +3.0 D multifocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantations in subjects with preoperative corneal astigmatism.

Patients and methods

This was a prospective cohort study conducted at 21 US sites. The study population consisted of 574 subjects, aged ≥21 years, with preoperative astigmatism 0.75–2.82 D, and potential postoperative visual acuity (VA) ≥0.2 logMAR, undergoing bilateral cataract removal by phacoemulsification. The intervention was bilateral implantation of aspheric apodized diffractive +3.0 D multifocal toric or spherical multifocal nontoric IOLs. The main outcome measures were monocular uncorrected near and distance VA and safety at 12 months.

Results

A total of 373/386 and 182/188 subjects implanted with multifocal toric and nontoric IOLs, respectively, completed 12-month follow-up after the second implantation. Toric IOLs were nonin-ferior in monocular uncorrected distance (4 m) and near (40 cm) VA but had >1 line better binocular uncorrected intermediate VA (50, 60, and 70 cm) than nontoric IOLs. Toric IOLs reduced cylinder to within 0.50 D and 1.0 D of target in 278 (74.5%) and 351 (94.1%) subjects, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) differences between intended and achieved axis orientation in the first and second implanted eyes were 5.0°±6.1° and 4.7°±4.0°, respectively. Mean ± SD 12-month IOL rotations in the first and second implanted eyes were 2.7°±5.8° and 2.2°±2.7°, respectively. No subject receiving toric IOLs required secondary surgical intervention due to optical lens properties.

Conclusion

Multifocal toric IOLs were noninferior to multifocal nontoric IOLs in uncorrected distance and near VAs in subjects with preexisting corneal astigmatism and effectively corrected astigmatism of 0.75–2.82 D.

In vitro optical quality measurements of three intraocular lens models having identical platform

BACKGROUND

With recent advances in technology and introduction of new intraocular lens (IOL) models, surgeons today have the opportunity to choose from various optical designs, which can influence the postoperative quality of vision. In our laboratory study, we compared the optical quality of three different IOLs that use the identical platform and are produced by the same manufacturer. The study included two diffractive multifocal IOLs, a bifocal and a trifocal one, as well as a monofocal IOL.

METHODS

Three IOL models: monofocal CT ASPHINA 409 M, diffractive bifocal AT LISA 809 M, and diffractive trifocal AT LISA Tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) were assessed for optical quality by measuring modulation transfer function (MTF) and Strehl Ratio (SR) values at pupil sizes of 3.0 and 4.5 mm on the OptiSpheric® IOL PRO (Trioptics GmbH, Germany). The United States Air Force (USAF) Target images were also recorded to comfirm the optical performance qualitatively.

RESULTS

For far focus at 50 lp/mm and 3.0 mm pupil size, MTF value of the monofocal lens (MTF = 0.798) was 1.8-fold and 2.1-fold better than the bifocal (MTF = 0.446) and the trifocal (MTF = 0.382) IOLs, respectively. For near focus, bifocal IOL (MTF = 0.265) was 1.4-fold better than trifocal IOL (MTF = 0.187), while for intermediate focus, the trifocal IOL (MTF = 0.148) was 1.7-fold better than the bifocal IOL (MTF = 0.086). For the same pupil size, total sum of light loss amounted to 5.2% for the monofocal, 16.0% for the bifocal and 6.0% for the trifocal IOL. For a larger pupil, the amount of light loss increased significantly for the multifocal IOLs.

CONCLUSIONS

The monofocal IOL performed the best for far, the bifocal IOL for near and the trifocal IOL for intermediate focus. While the monofocal IOL created the least amount of light loss for both pupil sizes, the trifocal IOL created less than half the amount of light loss than the bifocal IOL for small pupil. For large pupil, however, less light scatter was observed for the bifocal than the trifocal IOL.

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

The objective of this review is to assess the visual effects of implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses compared with bifocal intraocular lenses during cataract surgery among presbyopic patients.

The treatment methods for post-stroke visual impairment: A systematic review

AIM

To provide a systematic overview of interventions for stroke related visual impairments.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted including randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, cohort studies, observational studies, systematic reviews, and retrospective medical note reviews. All languages were included and translation obtained. This review covers adult participants (aged 18 years or over) diagnosed with a visual impairment as a direct cause of a stroke. Studies which included mixed populations were included if over 50% of the participants had a diagnosis of stroke and were discussed separately. We searched scholarly online resources and hand searched articles and registers of published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. Search terms included a variety of MESH terms and alternatives in relation to stroke and visual conditions. Article selection was performed by two authors independently. Data were extracted by one author and verified by a second. The quality of the evidence and risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools dependant on the type of article.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles (4142 subjects) were included in the review, including an overview of four Cochrane systematic reviews. Interventions appraised included those for visual field loss, ocular motility deficits, reduced central vision, and visual perceptual deficits.

CONCLUSION

Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the effectiveness of interventions for treating post-stroke visual impairments. For interventions which are used in practice but do not yet have an evidence base in the literature, it is imperative that these treatments be addressed and evaluated in future studies.

Patient-Centered and Visual Quality Outcomes of Premium Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Over 8 million cataract surgeries are performed in the United States and the European Union annually, with many patients choosing to pay out of pocket for premium options including premium intraocular lens implants (IOLs) or laser-assisted cataract surgery (LACS). This report provides a systematic review evaluating patient-centered and visual quality outcomes comparing standard monofocal IOLs to premium cataract surgery options.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched for publications published between January 1, 1980, and September 18, 2016, on multifocal, accommodative, and toric IOLs, monovision, and LACS, which reported on 1) dysphotopsias, 2) contrast sensitivity, 3) spectacle independence, 4) vision-related quality of life or patient satisfaction, and 5) IOL exchange.

Results

Multifocal lenses achieved higher rates of spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses but also had higher reported frequency of dysphotopsia and worse contrast sensitivity, especially with low light or glare. Accommodative lenses were not associated with reduced contrast sensitivity or more dysphotopsia but had only modest improvements in spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses. Studies of monovision did not target a sufficiently myopic outcome in the near-vision eye to achieve the full potential for spectacle independence. Patients reported high levels of overall satisfaction regardless of implanted IOL. No studies correlated patient-reported outcomes with patient expectations.

Conclusions

Studies are needed to thoroughly compare patient-reported outcomes with concomitant patient expectations. In light of the substantial patient costs for premium options, patients and their surgeons will benefit from a better understanding of which surgical options best meet patients’ expectations and how those expectations can be impacted by premium versus monofocal—including monovision—options.