A prospective randomized clinical evaluation of 3 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

Agreement between Two Devices for Measuring Pupil Diameter in Patients Implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between three methods for measuring pupil size in patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs): Keratograph 5M (K5M), Pentacam AXL Wave (PW), and a simple hand ruler. Sixty-nine subjects implanted with MIOLs and measured at the three-month follow-up visit were included in this retrospective analysis. K5M and PW were used to measure the photopic (PP) and mesopic (MP) pupil sizes, and a hand ruler was used to measure the pupil under environmental light conditions (135 lux). The Bland-Altman method with its limits (LoAs) was used to assess the agreement. The median PP was 2.8, 2.95, and 3 mm for K5M, PW, and the ruler, respectively (p < 0.05). Differences in PP were statistically significant for all paired comparisons (p < 0.0005) except between PW and the ruler (p = 0.44). The LoAs for the difference in PP between K5M and PW was 0.63 mm. The mean difference for MP between K5M and PW was 0.04 mm (p = 0.34) with LoAs of 0.72 mm. MP measured with K5M and PW could be considered interchangeable, although a correction of -0.3 mm (IC95%: -0.23 to -0.39) should be applied to PP measured with PW to attain the K5M mean.

Effect of illuminance and colour temperature of LED lighting on asthenopia during reading

PURPOSE

A self-controlled study to determine the influence of illuminance and correlated colour temperature (CCT) of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting on asthenopia.

METHODS

Twenty-two healthy postgraduates (nine women) were recruited to read under eight LED lighting conditions with four illuminances (300 lx, 500 lx, 750 lx and 1000 lx) and four CCTs (2700, 4000, 5000 and 6500 K) for 2 h. A subjective asthenopia questionnaire, the optical quality analysis system (OQAS) and an inflammatory cytokine assay were used to assess the levels of asthenopia.

RESULTS

Increased asthenopia was observed after reading, but the degree varied with lighting conditions. There were significant differences among the groups in terms of subjective symptoms (inattention, eye pain, dry eye and total score), optical performance parameters (modulation transfer function [MTF] cut-off frequency, Strehl ratio [SR], objective scattering index [OSI], mean OSI and accommodative amplitude [AA]) as well as inflammatory cytokines in the tears (epidermal growth factor [EGF], transforming growth factor [TGF]-α, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, macrophage inflammatory protein [MIP]-1β, tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α, TNF-β and vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]-A). All of the subjective and objective measurements collectively suggested that asthenopia was lessened for the 500 lx-4000 K condition. However, asthenopia was significantly worse for 300 lx-2700 K and 1000 lx-6500 K in terms of subjective symptoms and objective optical performance, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LED illuminance and CCT do have a significant effect on asthenopia during reading. 500 lx-4000 K lighting resulted in the lowest level of asthenopia. Conversely, low illuminance at low CCT (300 lx-2700 K) and high illuminance at high CCT (1000 lx-6500 K) promoted more severe asthenopia.

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.

Difference in Quality of Vision Outcome among Extended Depth of Focus, Bifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

We aimed to compare the postoperative quality of vision among patients who received extended depth of focus (EDOF), bifocal, and monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. A retrospective study was conducted, and 87 patients who underwent cataract surgery were enrolled. Patients were categorized into different groups according to IOL design, with 24, 29, and 34 individuals constituting bifocal, EDOF, and monofocal groups. Preoperative and postoperative visual acuity (VA), biometry data, refractive status, contrast sensitivity (CS), higher-order aberrations (HOAs), and a quality of vision questionnaire that consisted of 11 questions were obtained 1 month postoperatively. The Kruskal−Wallis test and Pearson’s chi-square test were applied for statistical analyses. The postoperative CDVA was better in the EDOF group than in the bifocal group (p = 0.043), and the residual cylinder was lower in the EDOF groups than in the other two groups (both p < 0.05). The CS was worse in the EDOF group than in the other two groups (all p < 0.05), while the spherical aberration and trefoil were lower in the EDOF group than in the bifocal group (both p < 0.05). In terms of the quality of vision, the scores were better in the monofocal group than in the EDOF group in seven items (all p < 0.05), and the quality of vision in the bifocal group was better than in the EDOF group in small print reading (p = 0.042). In addition, the incidence of glare was lower in the monofocal group than in the other two groups (p < 0.001), while the spectacle dependence ratio was significantly higher in the monofocal group compared to the other two groups (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the general quality of vision was better in the monofocal group compared to the bifocal and EDOF groups, while the spectacle dependence ratio was significantly higher in the monofocal group than in the other two groups.

The effects of premium intraocular lenses on presbyopia treatments

Background

Presbyopia has become a global disease affecting the world's aging population. Among various treatments, cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have become the most popular and common methods of presbyopia correction. During the twentieth century, IOLs have underwent significant innovation and advancements to meet the patients' high demands for functional vision at all distances.

Main Text

To meet the increasing needs for excellent near and intermediate vision for daily activities, some premium IOLs with more than one focus have been developed, for example, the refractive MfIOLs, diffractive MfIOLs, extended depth of field (EDOF) IOLs, and accommodating IOLs (AIOLs) were introduced to meet this need. In addition, the add-on MfIOLs have been explored as promising supplementary IOLs for pseudophakic presbyopia. When selecting the MfIOLs, the IOLs' features, patients' characteristics, preoperative eye conditions, and treatment expectations should be considered.

Conclusions

In this review, we focus on the multifocal IOLs (MfIOLs) commonly used for presbyopia correction and systematically summarized their optical designs and clinical outcomes. More evidence-based studies are required to provide guidelines for MfIOL selection, provide maximum visual benefits, and develop personalized visual solutions in the future.

Development and Pilot Usefulness Testing of an Interactive Computerized Patient Decision Aid for Intraocular Lens Selection Before Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

Modern cataract surgeries aim to treat impaired vision and also improve quality of life. An appropriate pre-operative selection of the intraocular lens is important to post-operative quality of life. Patients often have difficulty in choosing the best fit for individual needs. Patient decision aids (PDAs) are useful tools to assist patients in such decision-making process. However, most PDAs are paper-based and lack user interaction. This study is aimed to develop and evaluate an interactive computerized patient decision aid (cPDA) to help patients in the selection of an appropriate intraocular lens model before cataract surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and their families who were making the decision regarding intraocular lens selection before cataract surgeries were eligible to participate in this study. A cPDA was built on an interactive robot, to help the patients in the decision-making process. The usefulness of the cPDA was measured with the Decision Self-Efficacy (DSE) scale and Preparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) scale.

RESULTS

A total of 50 participants (18 men and 32 women) were enrolled in the pilot test. The mean pre-cPDA DSE score was 46.5 ± 13.6, and the post-cPDA DSE score was 72.6 ±12.8. The average gain score on DSE was 26.1, and the standard deviation was 8.0. The gain score on DSE was statistically significant, and the effect size was bigger than 3. The patients with junior or senior high degrees had the highest gain score on DSE, and the ones with college or above degrees had the lowest. The patients with college or above degrees had the highest PrepDM score, and the ones with elementary school or below had the lowest. Age and sex were not significant correlates of PrepDM. The patients with college or above degrees had the highest preparedness, but the lowest gain on DSE.

CONCLUSION

Education levels are associated with the usefulness of cPDA, both for the preparedness and decision efficacy of patients. The results provide insight into the feasibility of cPDA for the decision-making of pre-operative intraocular lens selection.

Visual Function and Patient Satisfaction with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in Patients with Glaucoma and Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Purpose

To report visual function and self-reported satisfaction of patients with glaucoma and dry age-related macular degeneration (dAMD) implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOL).

Methods

Patients with glaucoma or dAMD as well as healthy individuals implanted with MIOL were invited to participate. Explorations performed were uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA), low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA), binocular contrast sensitivity, and defocus curves. Patients completed the Catquest-9 questionnaire and reported on the presence of dysphotopsias and the need for spectacles.

Results

38 subjects were included: 11 in the healthy/control group and 9 each in the preperimetric glaucoma, perimetric glaucoma, and dAMD groups. Controls had statistically better monocular UDVA, CDVA, and LCVA than patients with glaucoma and dAMD, as well as better binocular acuity in the defocus curves between −2.00 D and +0.50 D. Differences between controls and patients with preperimetric glaucoma were not statistically significant. Between −3.0 D and +0.5 D, all groups except dAMD achieved acuities better than 0.2 logMAR. Patients with dAMD had worse contrast sensitivity than all others for 3 cycles per degree (cpd), and patients with glaucoma had worse values than all others for 12 cpd; other differences did not reach statistical significance. Healthy subjects and patients with preperimetric glaucoma perceived halos more often than patients with glaucoma or dAMD, while suffering less from glare. Patients with glaucoma and dAMD found more difficulties when driving at night and required spectacles for near more often than the other subjects. Patients with dAMD were less satisfied with their vision.

Conclusions

MIOLs may be implanted in patients with preperimetric glaucoma with little fear of patient dissatisfaction. In glaucoma and dAMD, MIOLs might be considered with caution, after explaining the increased risk of glare and the higher need for spectacle correction for reading.

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.].

Multifocal and Accommodating Intraocular Lenses for the Treatment of Presbyopia: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To review the published literature assessing the efficacy and safety of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) for the treatment of presbyopia after cataract removal.

METHODS

Literature searches were undertaken in January 2018 and September 2020 in the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. This yielded 761 articles, of which 34 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment and were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist. Thirteen studies were rated level I and 21 studies were rated level II.

RESULTS

Presbyopia-correcting lenses were effective at improving distance and near visual acuity after cataract surgery. Near acuity at different focal lengths was related directly to the effective add power of multifocal and extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs. Most multifocal and EDOF lenses that were compared with a control monofocal lens demonstrated that patient-reported spectacle independence was superior to the monofocal lens. All patients who had multifocal and EDOF lenses implanted showed decreased contrast sensitivity and reported more visual phenomena as compared with control participants who received monofocal lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Presbyopia-correcting lenses improve uncorrected near and distance visual acuity and decrease spectacle dependence after cataract surgery. Mesopic contrast sensitivity is decreased compared with monofocal lenses, and patient-reported visual phenomena are more likely in patients receiving multifocal or EDOF lenses.

Corneal Stromal Filler Injection as a Novel Approach to Correct Presbyopia-An Ex Vivo Pilot Study

Purpose

To evaluate the ex vivo feasibility of corneal stromal filler injection to create bifocality to correct presbyopia by flattening the central posterior corneal surface and thus increase refractive power.

Methods

Femtosecond laser-assisted corneal stromal pockets of varying diameters close to the posterior corneal curvature were cut into rabbit eyes ex vivo. Subsequently, hyaluronic acid was injected to flatten the central posterior curvature. Refractive parameters were determined using perioperatively acquired three-dimensional optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans. Using micrometer-resolution OCT, corneal endothelial cell morphology and density were evaluated.

Results

Following filler injection into the corneal stromal pockets, a fair volume-dependent increase of central refractive power up to 4 diopters (dpt) was observed. Unremarkable refractive changes of the peripheral posterior (3 mm, 0.20 ± 0.11 dpt; 2 mm, 0.11 ± 0.10 dpt) and the anterior corneal curvature (3 mm, 0.20 ± 0.34 dpt; 2 mm, 0.33 ± 0.31 dpt) occurred. Only negligible changes in astigmatism were observed. Different sizes of optical zones could be established. Furthermore, no alterations of corneal endothelial morphology or endothelial cell density (2831 ± 356 cells/mm² vs. 2734 ± 292 cells/mm²; P = 0.552) due to the adjacent laser treatment were observed.

Conclusions

The ex vivo investigations proved the principle of injecting a filler material into femtosecond laser-created corneal stromal pockets close to the posterior corneal curvature as an efficacious, individually adjustable, and novel approach to correct presbyopia without ablating corneal tissue.

Translational Relevance

Due to the aging population worldwide, presbyopia is an increasing problem; thus, our study may encourage further exploration to extend the treatment spectrum of clinically used femtosecond laser systems to correct presbyopia.

<p>Objective Quantification of Image Quality and Optical Scatter Before and After Nd:YAG Capsulotomy Using a Double-Pass Technique</p>

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the correlation between changes in vision and HD Analyzer dual-pass metrics versus changes in vision and conventional subjective slit lamp gradings in pseudophakic patients with posterior capsular opacity undergoing neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) capsulotomy.

Patients and Methods

High contrast (HC) and low contrast (LC) best spectacle-corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA) and HD Analyzer evaluation were prospectively performed on patients with mild-to-moderate posterior capsular opacification (PCO) and monofocal and accommodating intraocular lens implants. Differences between pre- and post-operative measurements were calculated, along with the correlation of HD Analyzer metrics and slit lamp grading to changes in visual acuity.

Results

Following Nd:YAG capsulotomy (n=29), there was statistically significant improvement in HC-BCVA and LC-BCVA, decrease in optical scatter, and corresponding improvement in Strehl ratio and HD Analyzer values at all contrast levels tested (p≤0.05). Pearson test showed a high correlation between the improvement in HC-BCVA (r coefficient = 0.78) and LC-BCVA (r coefficient = 0.71) to the improvement in Objective Scatter Index (OSI). There was a higher correlation of change in HC-BCVA to pre-op OSI  (r²=0.61) than to the subjective PCO grading score (r² = 0.19). There was also a higher correlation of change in LC-BCVA to pre-op OSI (r² = 0.49) than to subjective grading (r² = 0.16).

Conclusion

The HD Analyzer provides objective measurements of forward light scatter (ie, light directed towards the retina) that can assist with both PCO grading and prediction of improvement of visual quality after YAG laser capsulotomy with higher accuracy than conventional slit lamp assessment based upon backscatter (ie, light traveling to the observer) in patients tested with monofocal and accommodating intraocular lens implants.

Presbyopia management with Q-factor modulation without additive monovision: One-year visual and refractive results

PURPOSE

To analyze refractive results after hyperopic presbyopia surgery by Q-factor modulation without additive monovision.

SETTING

Quinze-Vingts National Ophthalmology Hospital, Paris, France.

DESIGN

Prospective nonrandomized study.

METHODS

Forty-five hyperopic presbyopic patients not tolerating monovision were included. The target for the dominant eye was emmetropia, whereas that for the nondominant eye was emmetropia associated with a target Q factor of -0.8. The postoperative follow-up included assessments of spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, monocular and binocular corrected and uncorrected (UDVA) distance visual acuities, and binocular corrected and uncorrected (UNVA) near visual acuities. Corneal pachymetry, topography, aberrometry and an analysis of patient satisfaction were performed at the 12-month examination.

RESULTS

The study comprised 90 eyes of 45 consecutive patients. The mean age at surgery was 53.8 years ± 4.99 (SD). The mean preoperative SE was +2.33 ± 1.16 diopters (D) in the dominant eyes and +2.26 ± 1.17 D in the nondominant eyes. At 12 months postoperatively, 42 patients (93%) had a binocular UDVA of Snellen 20/20 and 37 patients (82%) had a binocular UNVA of Jaeger 2 (Parinaud 3). The mean SE at 12 months was -0.22 ± 0.35 D in the dominant eyes (P < .0001) and -0.83 ± 0.50 D in the nondominant eyes (P < .0001). Two eyes required retreatment. Overall, 39 patients (87%) said that they were satisfied and would recommend the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The Q-factor modulation without additive monovision aims to compensate for presbyopia by changing the Q factor of the nondominant eye to generate a greater depth of field in hyperopic presbyopic patients who are unable to tolerate monovision. The visual outcomes and quality of vision were satisfactory, and only a few patients required additional correction.

Lens exchange for management of accommodative intraocular lens tilting

Accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) tilting, the so-called Z syndrome, is a rare complication of Crystalens (Bausch and Lomb) implantation. We report a significant IOL tilting and subsequent high lenticular astigmatism due to posterior capsular fibrosis 2 months after uncomplicated cataract surgery and Crystalens (AT50AO) implantation. The attempt to correct IOL position with neodymium-yttrium-aluminum garnet laser was unsuccessful, and Crystalens exchange with in-the-sulcus, three-piece monofocal IOL was performed. Accommodative IOL tilting could occur early after the surgery. Laser capsulotomy may be the first intervention to restore IOL position, but patients with a higher amount of lenticular astigmatism may require surgical intervention and IOL exchange.

Functional assessment of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the visual performance of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (EDOF-IOL).

SUBJECTS/METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, we enrolled 97 patients who underwent cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange with implantation of the Mini Well EDOF-IOL (SIFI, Italy). Patients underwent postoperatively the following examinations between 4 and 8 weeks after surgery: corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), reading speed with Radner's chart, distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and haloes quantitative assessment.

RESULTS

In the whole sample, the mean monocular CDVA and DCNVA were, respectively, 0.02 ± 0.07 logMAR and 0.38 ± 0.15 logRAD (logarithm of the reading acuity determination). In the 67 bilaterally implanted patients, binocular CDVA and DCNVA were better (0.00 ± 0.05 logMAR and 0.26 ± 0.13 logRAD) than the corresponding monocular values (p = 0.02 and p = 0.0002, respectively). Ninety-two percent of patients bilaterally implanted reached a binocular reading speed >80 words per minute at a 0.5 logRAD print size (corresponding to the common book print size). The defocus curves showed that the EDOF-IOL provided increased depth of focus through 2.0 D of defocus, with the best performance at 1.0 and 1.5 D. Contrast sensitivity was within normal limits at all spatial frequencies. The mean visual disturbance index was 0.08 ± 0.12, suggesting low night visual disturbances.

CONCLUSIONS

The new EDOF-IOL provided good visual acuity for distance, intermediate, and near vision, with no loss of contrast sensitivity and low risk of night visual disturbances.

Visual Performance of a New Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens Compared to a Distance-Dominant Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical performance of a new extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and compare it to that of a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal IOL.

METHODS

Patients implanted with an EDOF IOL (Mini Well; SIFI, Catania, Italy) inducing spherical aberration and with a multifocal IOL (ReSTOR SV25T; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) were analyzed. The following monocular parameters were investigated: corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), reading speed, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and halos and glare as quantified by a simulator (Halo & Glare Simulator; Eyeland-Design Network GmbH, Vreden, Germany) and questionnaire.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with the EDOF IOL and 37 with the multifocal IOL were enrolled. No statistically significant difference was observed for CDVA. The defocus curve of the EDOF IOL revealed no gaps for the intermediate range. Statistically significant differences were observed at -1.00 diopter (D) (EDOF IOL: 0.08 ± 0.09 logMAR; multifocal IOL: 0.21 ± 0.12 logMAR; P < .0001) and -1.50 D defocus (EDOF IOL: 0.15 ± 0.11 logMAR; multifocal IOL: 0.24 ± 0.13 logMAR; P = .0122). The reading speed at 40 cm was similar at all print sizes. The mean DCNVA was the same (EDOF IOL: 0.35 ± 0.14 logRAD, multifocal IOL: 0.35 ± 0.13 logRAD). No differences in contrast sensitivity were detected. According to the simulator, halos had a smaller mean size (P = .0439) and a lower mean intensity (P = .0222) with the EDOF IOL. No statistically significant differences were detected for glare size.

CONCLUSIONS

The new EDOF IOL performed similarly to a multifocal IOL at distance and near but was superior at intermediate distances. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(4):228-235.].

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).

Objective and subjective visual quality after implantation of all optic zone diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, case-control observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate the objective and subjective optical quality of all optic zone diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

Fifty patients (50 eyes) having phacoemulsification and IOL implantation surgery were enrolled. 25 patients were implanted with all optic zone diffractive multifocal IOL and 25 patients with monofocal IOL. Objective optical quality parameters under 4 mm pupil using Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS), subjective visual acuity (VA) at 85 cd/m² luminance and questionnaire concerning halo and visual function were assessed.

RESULTS

The multifocal group gained similar objective optical outcomes, such as OQAS values at contrast 100%, 20%, 9%, modulation transfer function cut-off and Strehl ratio, as the monofocal group. Objective scatter index (OSI) was significantly better in the monofocal group. Distance corrected near VA, uncorrected near VA, distance corrected intermediate VA and uncorrected intermediate VA were significantly better in the multifocal group. The difference in uncorrected distance VA and best corrected distance VA between the monofocal and multifocal groups was not significant. Mild halos and glare were reported in both groups and a significant difference between the two groups was not observed; however, moderate glare and halos were reported only in the multifocal group (2/25). There was no significant difference between the two groups when visual function was compared.

CONCLUSIONS

All optic zone diffractive multifocal IOLs provided almost the same objective optical quality as monofocal IOLs did under 4 mm pupil besides good all distance visual performance, but with greater OSI, indicating that implantation provides good optical quality in daytime but with more intraocular scatter light.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02234635, post-results.

Comparison of Contrast Sensitivity and Through Focus in Small-Aperture Inlay, Accommodating Intraocular Lens, or Multifocal Intraocular Lens Subjects

PURPOSE

To compare monocular and binocular mesopic contrast sensitivity and through focus following monocular implantation with KAMRA small-aperture inlay (AcuFocus, Irvine, California, USA) vs binocular implantation with an accommodating or multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implant.

DESIGN

Three-treatment randomized clinical trial of presbyopia-correcting IOLs with comparison to results from a previous nonrandomized multicenter clinical trial on the KAMRA corneal inlay.

METHODS

Study population of 507 subjects with KAMRA inlays; predetermined subgroups included 327 subjects that underwent contrast sensitivity testing and another 114 subjects for defocus curve testing, along with 78 subjects randomized between bilateral Crystalens Advanced Optics (AO) (Bausch + Lomb Surgical, Aliso Viejo, California, USA), AcrySof IQ ReSTOR +3.0 D (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, USA), or Tecnis +4D Multifocal (MF) (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, California, USA) IOL.

RESULTS

KAMRA inlay subjects demonstrated improved intermediate and near vision with minimal to no change to distance vision, better contrast sensitivity in the inlay eye when compared to the multifocals, and better binocular contrast sensitivity when compared to all 3 intraocular lenses. Crystalens AO was superior in uncorrected intermediate vision compared to the KAMRA inlay, but not in distance-corrected intermediate, and was worse in near vision. The multifocals were superior in near vision at their respective optimum near focus points, but worse in intermediate vision compared to both KAMRA inlay and Crystalens AO.

CONCLUSIONS

The demonstrated performance of these devices should be considered, along with subjects' visual demands and expectations, degree of crystalline lens dysfunction, and other ocular characteristics, in guiding the selection of small-aperture corneal inlay or specific intraocular lens in the correction of presbyopia.

Improving refractive outcomes in cataract surgery: A global perspective

This review summarises the current evidence base and provides guidelines for obtaining good refractive outcomes following cataract surgery. Important background information is also provided. In summary, the requirements are: (1) standardisation of biometry equipment used for axial length and keratometry measurement and the use of optical or immersion ultrasound biometry; (2) sutureless cataract surgery with “in the bag” intraocular lens (IOL) placement; (3) an appropriate 3^rd, 4^th or 5^th Generation IOL power formula should be used; (4) IOL formula constants must be optimized; (5) under certain conditions, the refractive outcome of the 2^nd eye can be improved based on the refractive error of the first eye; and (6) results should be audited for refinement and to ensure that standards are met.