Quality of life evaluation after implantation of 2 multifocal intraocular lens models and a monofocal model

Visual Outcomes According to Age After Bilateral Implantation of Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of age on visual outcomes after the bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

A total of 290 patients (580 eyes) who underwent bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL were enrolled in this retrospective case-control study. Patients were divided into five age groups: 45 to 49, 50 to 54, 55 to 59, 60 to 64, and 65 years and older. Postoperative monocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, respectively), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), binocular distance-corrected defocus curve, spectacle dependence for near and distance vision, and patient satisfaction scores were compared among the five groups.

RESULTS

The 45 to 49 years group had significantly better mean UDVA (0.02 ± 0.05 logMAR) and UNVA (0.02 ± 0.04 logMAR) than the 65 years and older group (0.06 ± 0.09 and 0.09 ± 0.09 logMAR; P = .029 and P < .001; respectively). However, no significant differences were observed in the mean CDVA among the groups. Binocular visual performance of the 45 to 49 years group was better than that of the 65 years and older age group at defocuses of +1.00, +0.50, -1.00, and -3.00 D. No significant differences were observed in spectacle dependence for near and distance vision or in patient satisfaction scores among the five groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation of trifocal IOLs can provide excellent near and distance vision in both young and older patients. However, UDVA and UNVA revealed considerably worse results in the older group, although no significant difference was observed in CDVA and postoperative refractive errors by age. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(4):e270-e277.].

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.

Comparative analysis of visual outcomes with 2 enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the visual performance, spectacle independence, and subjective visual quality of 2 enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs): Eyhance ICB00 and ZOE Primus-HD.

SETTING

Ophthalmology Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients without ocular comorbidities and corneal astigmatism <0.75 diopters (D) undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of enhanced monofocal Eyhance and ZOE were included. 6 months postoperatively, the following parameters were analyzed: subjective and objective refraction; monocular and binocular corrected (4 m) and uncorrected (UDVA) distance visual acuities; corrected distance, intermediate (66 cm), and near (40 cm) visual acuities, as well as uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and uncorrected near (UNVA) visual acuities; photopic contrast sensitivity; binocular defocus curve; halo and glare perception; and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

100 eyes of 50 patients were evaluated (25 patients per IOL group). The 2 IOLs showed superimposable visual performances, without significant differences in terms of refractive and visual outcomes, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, scores of vision quality, and spectacle independence. Of note, monocular and binocular UDVA was excellent in both groups. The 2 IOL models achieved satisfactory binocular UIVA, with more than 70% of patients reaching a binocular UIVA of ≤0.1 logMAR. Up to 84% of patients eventually declared to feel comfortable frequently while staying at intermediate distance.

CONCLUSIONS

The general visual outcome of the Eyhance ICB00 and the ZOE Primus-HD enhanced monofocal IOLs is similar, with special reference to the satisfactory spectacle independence for intermediate distance.

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.

Visual outcomes of non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus and enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses: A case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the visual outcomes of a non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) with an enhanced monofocal IOL.

METHODS

We evaluated 76 eyes from 38 patients who had undergone bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of either an EDoF IOL (AcrySof IQ Vivity, n = 40 eyes) or an enhanced monofocal IOL (Tecnis Eyhance, n = 36 eyes). Objective refraction, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, DCIVA), uncorrected and distance-corrected near visual acuity (UNVA, DCNVA), binocular defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, halo and glare perception, and spectacle independence were compared.

RESULTS

Monocular and binocular UDVA, CDVA, UIVA, and DCIVA were comparable in both groups, whereas UNVA and DCNVA were significantly better with the Vivity group than with the Eyhance group. The two groups had no statistically significant difference regarding photopic and scotopic contrast sensitivities or halo and glare perception. Compared to the Eyhance IOL, the Vivity IOL had a larger landing zone in the defocus curve and provided higher spectacle independence for near vision.

CONCLUSION

Both the AcrySof IQ Vivity and Tecnis Eyhance IOLs had excellent distant and intermediate visual acuity, while the former had more satisfactory near vision outcomes with greater spectacle independence rate. No differences were obtained between two IOLs in terms of patient satisfaction and visual disturbances such as halo and glare.

Visual outcomes, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction of pseudophakic mini-monovision using a new monofocal intraocular lens

Modified monovision-or "mini-monovision"-is an alternative method to multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) for treating presbyopia. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the new enhanced monofocal Tecnis Eyhance (ICB00) IOLs with the mini-monovision technique to improve near vision. In this retrospective case series, the medical records of 50 patients (100 eyes) who underwent bilateral cataract surgery were reviewed. Patients were divided into the Emmetropia and Mini-monovision groups based on the postoperative spherical equivalent and residual myopia. The binocular visual acuity for far (4 m), intermediate (66 cm), and near (40 cm) distances, binocular defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, visual symptoms, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction rates were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively. The binocular uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, incidence of photic phenomena, and patient satisfaction were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the binocular uncorrected near visual acuities and spectacle independence rates were significantly better in the Mini-monovision group (p < 0.001). Conclusively, the pseudophakic mini-monovision technique using enhanced monofocal IOLs may be a promising option for presbyopia correction in patients unsuitable for multifocal IOLs.

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 and Aberrometric Evaluation of a New Monofocal IOL with Intermediate Vision Improvement

Purpose

The aim of the study was to evaluate the visual outcomes, aberrometric results, and subjective and objective optical qualities 12 months after implantation of a new monofocal intraocular lens (Physiol IsoPure 1.2.3) in comparison with a standard monofocal intraocular lens (Tecnis PCB00).

Materials and Methods

Cataract patients without ocular comorbidities had bilateral implantation of the IsoPure IOL or the PCB00 IOL. One month after eye surgery, the visual acuity and monocular defocus curve were assessed. Twelve months after surgery, the visual acuity, binocular defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and subjective/objective optical quality were assessed. Furthermore, wavefront analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was the best distance correct/uncorrected visual acuity at intermediate and far distances. The secondary endpoint was an aberration evaluation of the IOLs and contrast sensitivity.

Results

The study comprised a total of 42 patients (84 eyes). Monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance were similar between groups, and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was significantly higher in the IsoPure group. There was no difference in contrast sensitivity and subjective and objective optical qualities. The optical aberrations at 3.0 and 5.0 mm aperture diameters were similar in both groups.

Conclusion

The IsoPure IOL, based on greater depth of focus than the aspheric monofocal IOL, may offer a good option for the distance and intermediate vision without increasing optical aberrations and any photic phenomena.

Mesopic Disability Glare in Stage-Two Dysfunctional Lens Syndrome

Introduction

There is a lack of evidence about the exact deterioration of visual function associated with the age-related natural changes in the lens, particularly in intermediate (stage-2) dysfunctional lens syndrome (DLS). Standard photopic visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests may not show the visual worsening in daily life activities, such as oncoming vehicle headlights at night. The purpose of this study was to analyze visual function under different conditions and glare sources in stage-2 DLS.

Methods

Forty patients over 49 years of age with initial bilateral lens opacification (Lens Opacities Classification System III [LOCS-III] scores up to 3), best-corrected visual acuity of 20/25 or better, and no ocular disease were evaluated. Binocular photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS) with/without halogen and xenon increasing glare sources were analyzed. Mesopic disability glare (MDG) was calculated as the difference between mesopic CS with/without the glare source.

Results

The median logarithmic CS (logCS) values were lower under mesopic conditions (1.05) than under photopic illumination (1.65; P < 0.001). Halogen and xenon glare further decreased mesopic CS (both, median logCS 0.75, P < 0.001). The mean MDG was 0.31 ± 0.10 log units for halogen glare and 0.33 ± 0.09 log units for xenon glare. The mesopic CS and MDG were not associated with any photopic test. The mesopic CS with glare but not photopic CS or mesopic CS was correlated with the LOCS-III scores. The best association was provided by MDG, which showed a pooled correlation with LOCS-III nuclear opalescence (r = 0.411, P < 0.001) and cortical scores (r = 0.226, P = 0.04).

Conclusion

The mesopic CS under a glare source is an independent early indicator of visual impairment in stage-2 DLS patients, and appears to be substantial. Furthermore, the MDG is more sensitive than photopic and mesopic CS for evaluating patients with initial phacosclerosis. Surgeons should consider this in the decision-making process of the correct timing for lens surgery.

Visual Acuity, Wavefront Aberrations, and Defocus Curves With an Enhanced Monofocal and a Monofocal Intraocular Lens: A Prospective, Randomized Study

PURPOSE

To compare uniocular and binocular visual acuity, wavefront aberrations, and defocus curves using the TECNIS Eyhance (Johnson & Johnson) and RayOne (Rayner) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, comparative study, 50 patients (100 eyes) were randomized to receive the same IOL bilaterally (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04175951). Follow-up visits were at 1 and 3 to 9 months postoperatively. Primary outcome measures were uncorrected distance (UDVA) and uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) visual acuity (logMAR) at 66 cm. Secondary outcome measures were corrected distance (CDVA) and distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) visual acuity at 66 cm, manifest refraction, spherical (Z₄⁰) and vertical coma (Z₃^-1) aberrations (total, internal eye, and corneal) at normal pupil size, defocus curves, and Catquest 9SF and Glare and Halos questionnaire on Likert scale (1 = no glare and halos and 4 = continuous).

RESULTS

Uniocular UDVA (P = .02), UIVA (P = .02), and binocular UIVA (P < .01) and uniocular (P = .01) and binocular (P < .01) DCIVA were better with the TECNIS Eyhance IOL at 3 to 9 months. At 3 to 9 months, both uniocular and binocular defocus curves were significantly broader with the TECNIS Eyhance IOL between -0.50 and -3.00 diopters (D). For total and internal eye, there was a statistically but clinically insignificant difference in Z₄⁰ with the TECNIS Eyhance IOL. Rasch scores improved (TECNIS Eyhance: 2.04 ± 1.34 to 2.91 ± 0.81 and RayOne:1.61 ± 1.35 to 2.97 ± 0.16) at 3 to 9 months. Refraction, Z₃^-1, glare, and halos were not different.

CONCLUSIONS

The TECNIS Eyhance IOL provided better DCIVA and broader defocus curves than the RayOne IOL. There was no difference in CDVA or patient-reported outcomes. Although there were some differences in aberrations when measured with normal pupil size, they were not clinically significant. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(1):10-20.].

Comparative analysis of visual outcome with three intraocular lenses: monofocal, enhanced monofocal, and extended range of vision

PURPOSE

To compare the visual performance, spectacle independence and subjective visual quality of three intraocular lenses (IOLs): monofocal, enhanced monofocal, and extended range of vision.

SETTING

Ophthalmology Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

We included patients without ocular comorbidities and corneal astigmatism <0.75 diopters (D) undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of: monofocal Tecnis ZCB00, enhanced monofocal Eyhance ICB00, and extended range of vision Symfony ZXR00. Six months postoperatively we analyzed the following parameters: subjective and objective refraction; monocular and binocular corrected distance (4 m) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); corrected distance, intermediate (66 cm) and near (40 cm) visual acuity, as well as uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and uncorrected near (UNVA) visual acuity; photopic contrast sensitivity, binocular defocus curve; halo and glare perception; spectacle independence.

RESULTS

We evaluated 150 eyes of 75 patients (25 patients per IOL group). Monocular and binocular UDVA was excellent in all three groups. Eyhance achieved binocular UIVA similar to that of Symfony, the latter showing the highest binocular UNVA. The defocus curves at -1 D were equivalent for both Eyhance and Symfony, whereas contrast sensitivity was similar in all three groups. The Eyhance spectacle independence score was comparable to Symfony's for intermediate-distance activities, the latter however achieving the worst results for halos and glare.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced monofocal Eyhance was not inferior to Symfony as regards intermediate-distance visual outcome and spectacle independence, also providing lower subjective perception of halos and glare.

Visual performance of four types of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses and a review of articles

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of a variety of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in patients diagnosed with presbyopia or cataracts.

METHODS

This clinical trial study included 141 patients (282 eyes) with different MIOLs implantation. The Symfony (60 eyes), the ReSTOR (100 eyes), the AT LISAtri (60 eyes), and the PanOptix (62 eyes) intraocular lenses were evaluated in this prospective interventional study. The near, intermediate, and distant visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, and defocus curve were measured as valid criteria. To statistically analyze the results, we used the Statistical Package for Social Science software, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank t, the one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey's post-hoc test in our analysis. Moreover, we conducted a detailed literature search on the PubMed database in English about MIOLs, in total 59 studies were included in this review article.

RESULTS

The four approaches did not show any significant difference in the best-corrected distance visual acuity (P>0.05). The defocus curves at the contrast of 100% showed that trifocal IOLs had better intermediate performance than the bifocal IOL (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between AT LISAtri and PanOptix lenses for visual acuity at all distances. The eyes with PanOptix, Symfony, and AT LISAtri IOL showed better contrast sensitivity than those ReSTOR at spatial frequencies of 1, 3, and 6 cpd in photopic and mesopic conditions (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

All four groups of the multifocal lenses were satisfying in terms of distance and near vision. Also, the group of trifocal lenses led to satisfactory outcomes in intermediate vision, without degradation in quality of vision.

Visual function and mobility after multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation

Clinical relevance: Mobility and fall risk may be important considerations in choosing between intraocular lenses.Background: Fall risk in older adults increases when wearing multifocal spectacles, but little is known about mobility among individuals with different types of intraocular lenses. This study compared visual function, fall risk and balance control following bilateral implantation of monofocal or multifocal intraocular lenses.Methods: This was a non-randomised, cross-sectional study involving adults with bilateral intraocular lenses. Participants completed questionnaires concerning physical functioning, fall history and balance-related confidence. Binocular visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart and computerized testing), depth perception and glare sensitivity were assessed. Physical performance measures included the Sensory Organization Test, preferred gait speed, Dynamic Gait Index and wayfinding in a virtual environment.Results: Fifteen participants (mean ± standard deviation, 67.1 ± 6.8 years) had monofocal intraocular lenses and 14 participants (68.1 ± 6.1 years) had multifocal intraocular lenses. Contrast sensitivity in the monofocal group was significantly better than that in the multifocal group (p = 0.02) at intermediate and high spatial frequencies. Contrast sensitivity of the monofocal group also was less affected by glare than the contrast sensitivity of the multifocal group, at an intermediate spatial frequency (p = 0.02). However, the multifocal group had significantly better Dynamic Gait Index scores (p = 0.04), even after controlling for perceived physical function.Conclusions: The participants with monofocal intraocular lenses generally had better contrast sensitivity than did those with multifocal intraocular lenses. However, the scores on a mobility test that is associated with fall risk were worse for those with monofocal lenses.

Visual outcome, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a new monofocal IOL, enhanced for intermediate vision: preliminary results

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes, contrast sensitivity, optical quality, spectacle independence, and visual disturbances in patients implanted with 2 models of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Eye Clinic, Department of NEUROFARBA, University of Florence, Italy.

DESIGN

Prospective case series METHODS:: Patients without ocular comorbidities and corneal astigmatism less than 0.75 diopters (D) had cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of either of 2 monofocal IOLs, the Tecnis ZCB00 or the Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.). Six months postoperatively, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected (at 4 m) distance visual acuities, as well as uncorrected (UIVA), distance corrected, and corrected intermediate (at 66 cm) and near (at 40 cm) visual acuities were measured. Photopic contrast sensitivity, binocular defocus curve, objective scatter index (OSI), Strehl ratio, modulation transfer function (MTF) cutoff, halo and glare perception, and spectacle independence were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 80 eyes of 40 patients were evaluated in this study. Although monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance and near visual acuities were similar between groups, monocular and binocular UIVA were significantly higher in the Eyhance group. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of photopic contrast sensitivity, OSI, MTF cutoff, Strehl ratio, and glare and halo perception. The ICB00 IOL provided better spectacle independence than the ZCB00 IOL for intermediate distance.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without ocular comorbidities, the Eyhance ICB00 IOL provided better UIVA and higher intermediate spectacle independence without impairment of far vision and visual quality, compared with the ZCB00 IOL.

Comparison of Post-Cataract Surgery Visual Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients Bilaterally Implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Introduction

The present study compared visual outcomes in eyes with bilateral implantation of two multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs)—the Eyecryl™ ACTV diffractive multifocal IOL (group 1) and AcrySof^® IQ ReSTOR^® multifocal IOL (group 2).

Methods

This was a prospective, two-group observational longitudinal study of 118 eyes from 59 patients conducted at Laxmi Eye Institute, Panvel, India. We evaluated the patients at 1, 3, and 6 months. We assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations, reading speed, defocus curve, stereopsis, quality of life (QOL), and adverse events in these participants.

Results

The median (interquartile range) best-corrected distance visual acuity was 0.18 (0, 0.18) in group 1 and 0.18 (0, 0.18) in group 2 at 1, 3, and 6 months; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.48). The binocular defocus curve in both groups showed two peaks at 0.0 to −0.5 D and at −2.5 D. The mean (95% confidence interval) critical print size was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 at low illumination (0.918 [0.905, 0.931] vs 1.154 [1.128, 1.180]; p = 0.004). Contrast sensitivity was significantly better in group 1 under mesopic conditions but not under scotopic conditions. Though total QOL did not differ significantly between groups, the psychosocial quality of life was significantly better in group 1. About 23% of patients in group 2 reported unwanted images, compared with 0% in group 1 (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

We found that the Eyecryl and AcrySof groups were comparable for best-corrected visual acuity, photopic contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, reading parameters, stereopsis, and quality of vision. However, the Eyecryl group had better mesopic contrast and a lower proportion of unwanted images. Psychosocial quality of life was significantly better in the Eyecryl group; however, satisfaction was similar between groups. The cost of one of the lenses is less than the other. Thus, individuals with limited resources may opt for the Eyecryl™ ACTV, with similar visual outcomes.

Comparison of visual performance between monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses of the same material and basic design

To compare the visual performance of a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (ZCB00) and a multifocal IOL (ZMB00) of the same material and basic design, we evaluated postoperative parameters at 10 weeks after the last surgery in cataract patients who underwent bilateral ZCB00 or ZMB00 implantation from December 13, 2010, to July 29, 2019, with the right and left lenses implanted within 3 months of each other. The study enrolled 2,230 eyes of 1,115 patients. The monofocal group comprised 904 eyes of 452 patients (72.3 ± 6.8 years; females/males, 268/184), and the multifocal group comprised 1,326 eyes of 663 patients (67.0 ± 7.8 years; females/males, 518/145). Contrast sensitivity (4.0/2.5/1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), contrast sensitivity with glare (1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), and the VFQ-25 score for driving at night were significantly better in the monofocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). Uncorrected intermediate/near visual acuity and near spectacle independence were significantly better in the multifocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). The two IOL groups had different characteristics in terms of contrast sensitivity, night-time driving, uncorrected intermediate/near visual acuity and near spectacle independence.

Implantation of a diffractive-refractive trifocal intraocular lens with centralized diffractive rings: Two-year results

PURPOSE

To compare the optical performance and quality of life after implantation of a new progressively apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and report the visual and patient-reported outcomes and contrast sensitivity.

SETTING

Csolnoky Ferenc Hospital, Veszprem, Hungary.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients had bilateral implantation of the trifocal IOL during cataract surgery. The preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), CDVA, uncorrected (UIVA) and corrected (CIVA) intermediate visual acuities, and uncorrected (UNVA) and corrected (CNVA) near visual acuities (all logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) were collected. Contrast sensitivity, slitlamp photographs for evaluation of posterior capsule opacification, and a quality-of-vision questionnaire were assessed.

RESULTS

The study comprised 100 eyes (50 patients). The mean postoperative UDVA was 0.01 at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The mean CDVA was -0.02 ± 0.03 (SD) at 6 months, -0.04 ± 0.05 at 1 year, and 0.06 ± 0.05 at 2 years. The mean UIVA was 0.05 ± 0.11, 0.04 ± 0.09, and 0.06 ± 0.11, respectively. The mean CIVA was -0.01 ± 0.07, -0.02 ± 0.06, and -0.01 ± 0.07, respectively. The mean UNVA was 0.08 ± 0.08, 0.07 ± 0.08, and 0.10 ± 0.09, respectively. The mean CNVA was 0.03 ± 0.06 at 3 months, 0.04 ± 0.05 at 1 year, and 0.05 ± 0.07 at 2 years. The mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity values were within the upper normal range for age-matched values.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation of a new trifocal IOL with centralized diffractive rings provided good functional vision at all distances. The levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction were high with minimal dysphotopsia symtoms.

Comparison of new monofocal innovative and standard monofocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification

PURPOSE

To evaluate the early findings of new monofocal intraocular lens (Tecnis^® Eyhance) in comparison with standard monofocal intraocular lens (Tecnis^® 1-piece) in patients who underwent cataract surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-four eyes of thirty-two patients (each intraocular lens model was implanted bilaterally in 16 patients) were included in this retrospective study. Preoperative and postoperative (at one month) manifest refraction, spherical equivalent (SE) values, monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), binocular defocus curve, photopic contrast-sensitivity, spectacle independence, photic phenomena, tolerance to residual refractive errors and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean monocular postoperative UDVA, CDVA, DCNVA, spherical equivalent and cylinder values were comparable between each group (p > 0.05). Monocular and binocular DCIVA and UCIVA were significantly higher in Tecnis^® Eyhance group than Tecnis^® 1-piece group (p = 0.033, p = 0.038, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected between groups regarding the photopic contrast sensitivities for any spatial frequency (p > 0.05). Spectacle independence was significantly higher in Tecnis^® Eyhance group than Tecnis^® 1-piece group. Tecnis^® Eyhance IOL revealed a good tolerance to unexpected residual refractive errors than Tecnis^® 1-piece IOL.

CONCLUSION

Tecnis^® Eyhance appears to be an effective option for both patients and surgeons regarding better intermediate visual acuities and more forgiving for residual refractive errors relative to the standard monofocal intraocular lenses. However, longer follow-up studies with larger group of patients are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of Tecnis^® Eyhance intraocular lens.

Long-term objective and subjective outcomes following bilateral implantation of diffractive bifocal or trifocal intraocular lenses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the objective and subjective outcomes after the bilateral implantation of a diffractive bifocal and trifocal intraocular lens.

METHODS

This is a case-control, single-center observational study which included 27 patients; 16 patients were implanted bilaterally with the bifocal AcrySof IQ ReSTOR+3.0D and 11 patients with the trifocal AT LISA tri 839MP. Uncorrected visual acuity at distance, intermediate, and near under mesopic and photopic conditions using ETDRS charts with 10% and 100% contrast, corrected distance visual acuity, and binocular defocus curve in photopic conditions; binocular contrast sensitivity under mesopic and photopic conditions for far and near distances were assessed. The Visual Function Questionnaire-25 questionnaire was used to assess patients' satisfaction. All the measurements were performed 6-24 months after cataract surgery.

RESULTS

The ReSTOR group had better binocular uncorrected near visual acuity in photopic conditions with low and high contrast charts (p = 0.040 and p = 0.033, respectively), as well as in far contrast sensitivity measurement under mesopic conditions with a spatial frequency of 3 cycles per degree (p = 0.034). There was not a significant difference between the two study groups in uncorrected near, intermediate or distance vision under mesopic conditions. The AT LISA tri study group had better subjective outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both intraocular lenses restore visual acuity after cataract surgery. The ReSTOR intraocular lens provides better objective outcomes than the AT LISA tri, although the latter provides better subjective outcomes. The relevance of this study is the evaluation of both objective and subjective outcomes.

Comparison of Outcomes after Phacoemulsification with Two Different Corneal Incision Distances Anterior to the Limbus

Purpose

To compare visual performance and visual quality outcomes after phacoemulsification with two different clear corneal incision (CCI) distances anterior to the limbus in senile cataract patients.

Methods

Retrospective case series. Patients who had undergone phacoemulsification were divided into two groups according to the CCI distances anterior to the limbus. The CCI distances in group A range from 1 mm to 1.5 mm, while those in group B range from 0.5 mm to 1 mm. The visual acuity, refraction, surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), corneal aberrations, anterior segment parameters, and subjective vision quality were evaluated.

Results

This study enrolled 54 eyes, with 27 eyes per group. Both groups had significant improvement in postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in postoperative UDVA, CDVA, SIA, corneal aberrations, anterior segment parameters, or VF-QOL questionnaire performance (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The phacoemulsification with CCI distances ranging from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm is an effective and safe therapy to senile cataract. The CCI distance anterior to the limbus that ranges from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm is recommended for routine phacoemulsification.

Effectiveness of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery and lens replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) offer the possibility of spectacle-free vision following cataract surgery compared to standard IOLs. Existing systematic reviews have generally concluded that multifocal IOLs result in better uncorrected near vision and greater spectacle independence, but more unwanted visual phenomena such as glare and halos, compared to monofocal IOLs. However, the certainty of evidence has been low for most outcomes, and pooled analyses have grouped together technologically obsolete lenses with newer lenses, potentially obscuring differences in performance across different lens types.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review searching for RCTs of a multifocal IOL to a standard IOL or monovision that reported spectacle independence, visual acuity, or quality of life. Databases were searched from 1/1/2006-4/30/2017. Existing reviews were used to identify older studies. Title/abstract screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Where possible, random effects meta-analysis was performed to synthesize results. In addition to comparing multifocal IOLs as a group to monofocal IOLs, we also compared newer diffractive lenses to obsolete or refractive lenses.

RESULTS

Twenty-five eligible studies were identified. There was no difference in pooled estimates of corrected or uncorrected distance vision between multifocal and standard IOLs. Compared to monofocal IOLs, multifocal IOLs had statistically significantly better pooled results for the outcome of near vision (10 studies, 1025 patients, mean difference in logMAR of -0.26 (95% CI -0.37, -0.15)); spectacle dependence (12 studies, 1237 patients, relative risk of 0.27 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38)) and borderline significantly better quality of vision (6 studies, 596 patients, standardized mean difference of -0.54, (95% CI -1.12, 0.04)). Compared to monofocal IOLs, multifocal IOLs had statistically significantly worse pooled results for the outcomes of glare (9 studies, 847 patients, risk ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 1.15, 1.61) and halos (7 studies, 754 patients, risk ratio of 3.14 (95% CI 1.63, 6.08). Newer multifocal lenses had statistically significantly better outcomes than older diffractive lenses or refractive lenses, when compared to monofocal IOLs, in near vision, quality of vision, and risk of halos.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal IOLs compared to standard IOLs or monovision result in better uncorrected near vision and a higher proportion of patients who achieve spectacle independence, but greater risk of unwanted visual phenomena. Newer diffractive lenses may be better than refractive lenses in near vision and quality of vision outcomes, with less risk of halos than older diffractive lenses and refractive lenses. (PROSPERO registration CRD42017069949).

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 Evaluation of an Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens With the Salzburg Reading Desk

BACKGROUND

Clinical evaluation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) regarding visual performance at various distances, reading performance on an electronic reading desk, and depth of focus on the defocus curve.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 30 eyes of 15 patients who received the Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Ana, CA) were examined 3.60 ± 1.54 months postoperatively. Uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA and CDVA), uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate (UIVA and DCIVA), and uncorrected and distance-corrected near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity were determined. The defocus curve was performed with distance correction. Furthermore, the reading acuity at the preferred near and intermediate distances was measured with consideration of the reading distance, speed, and print size. A subjective questionnaire was also administered.

RESULTS

Results showed a median UDVA of 0.03 logMAR or 20/21.43 Snellen (range: 0.44 to -0.18 logMAR or 20/55.08 to 20/13.21 Snellen), UNVA of 0.20 logMAR or 20/31.70 Snellen (range: 0.46 to 0.00 logMAR or 20/57.68 to 20/20 Snellen), and UIVA of -0.03 logMAR or 20/18.67 Snellen (range: 0.14 to -0.18 logMAR or 20/27.61 to 20/13.21 Snellen). The improved performance at intermediate distance was confirmed by an uncorrected reading acuity of 0.09 logMAR or 20/24.61 Snellen (range: 0.36 to 0.00 logMAR or 20/45.82 to 20/20.00 Snellen) at a preferred intermediate distance of 64.10 cm (range: 52.0 to 75.0 cm). The defocus curve showed an extended range of visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better between 1.00 and -1.50 diopters.

CONCLUSIONS

The EDOF IOL design provided a wide range of improved visual and reading function between far and intermediate distances and also improved near visual acuity. Patients reported a high rate of satisfaction and spectacle independence at the various distances. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(10):664-669.].

Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia

Presbyopia is the primary cause of reduction in the quality of life of people in their 40s, due to dependence on spectacles. Therefore, presbyopia correction has become an evolving and rapidly progressive field in refractive surgery. There are two primary options for presbyopia correction: the dynamic approach uses the residual accommodative capacity of the eye, and the static approach attempts to enhance the depth of focus of the optical system. The dynamic approach attempts to reverse suspected pathophysiologic changes. Dynamic approaches such as accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs), scleral expansion techniques, refilling, and photodisruption of the crystalline lens have attracted less clinical interest due to inconsistent results and the complexity of the techniques. We have reviewed the most popular static techniques in presbyopia surgery, including multifocal IOLs, PresbyLASIK, and corneal inlays, but we should emphasize that these techniques are very different from the physiologic status of an untouched eye. A systematic PubMed search for the keywords “presbylasik”, “multifocal IOL”, and “presbyopic corneal inlay” revealed 634 articles; 124 were controlled clinical trials, 95 were published in the previous 10 years, and 78 were English with available full text. We reviewed the abstracts and rejected the unrelated articles; other references were included as needed. This narrative review compares different treatments according to available information on the optical basis of each treatment modality, including the clinical outcomes such as near, intermediate, and far visual acuity, spectacles independence, quality of vision, and dysphotopic phenomena.

Reading and Quality of Life Differences between Tecnis ZCB00 Monofocal and Tecnis ZMB00 Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To compare the NEI-RQL-42 quality of life questionnaire and the Radner Vissum reading test outcomes after bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of Tecnis ZCB00 monofocal and Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

Forty-two eyes of 21 patients who had phacoemulsification were implanted with Tecnis ZCB00 IOL and 82 eyes of 41 patients were implanted with Tecnis ZMB00 IOL. They answered the NEI-RQL-42 questionnaire before cataract surgery and 3 months after it. The Radner Vissum test was performed 3 months after the surgery with optical correction for near vision in patients with monofocal IOL, but without it in patients with multifocal IOL.

Results

Regarding the NEI-RQL-42 test, the multifocal group obtained better results in items 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 31, and 40, and in the following categories: near vision, dependence on correction, and suboptimal correction (p<0.05). The monofocal group only showed better results in item 17. As for the Radner Vissum test, the multifocal group obtained significantly better results in phrases 1, 3, 4, and 5, and in the number of incorrect syllables (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Patients with Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal IOL report a higher quality of life regarding the lack of need for optical correction for near vision in their daily activities, but halos in vision at night. Additionally, patients with multifocal IOL achieve similar or better reading quality at near vision and under photopic lighting conditions than patients with monofocal IOL with near vision optical correction.

Visual outcomes of a new toric trifocal diffractive intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate the visual, refractive, contrast sensitivity, and aberrometric outcomes as well as the patient quality of life and photic phenomena disturbances after cataract surgery with implantation of a new trifocal toric intraocular lens (IOL).

SETTINGS

Premium Clinic, Regional Hospital in Havlickuv Brod, Czech Republic, and Vissum and Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective consecutive series of cases.

METHODS

The study involved eyes with corneal astigmatism of 1.25 D or more that were having cataract surgery with implantation of the trifocal toric IOL AT Lisa tri toric 939MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Visual outcomes and astigmatic changes analyzed by Alpins vector analysis were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively. Contrast sensitivity, quality of life, and photic phenomena were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The study involved a total of 30 eyes of 16 patients, age 37 to 64 years. A significant improvement with surgery was observed in uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (P ≤ .01). A significant decrease in the refractive cylinder was observed postoperatively (P < .01), with all eyes showing a postoperative astigmatism below 1.00 D. The difference between targeted and surgically induced astigmatism was small (0.06 ± 0.30 D) but statistically significant (P = .04). The mean magnitude of angle of error was 5.80 ± 8.47 degrees. The low levels of higher-order aberrations found postoperatively were consistent with the good levels of contrast sensitivity achieved. Regarding quality of life, low to moderate levels of difficulty in performing various types of vision-related tasks were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The trifocal toric IOL evaluated provides effective restoration of visual function after cataract surgery, with associated high levels of visual acuities and quality of life.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in the medical devices that are involved in this manuscript.

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

BACKGROUND

Good unaided distance visual acuity (VA) is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the visual effects of multifocal IOLs in comparison with the current standard treatment of monofocal lens implantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. We also considered trials comparing multifocal IOLs with "monovision" whereby one eye is corrected for distance vision and one eye corrected for near vision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 20 eligible trials that enrolled 2230 people with data available on 2061 people (3194 eyes). These trials were conducted in Europe (13), China (three), USA (one), Middle East (one), India (one) and one multicentre study in Europe and the USA. Most of these trials compared multifocal with monofocal lenses; two trials compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask participants and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias.There was moderate-certainty evidence that the distance acuity achieved with multifocal lenses was not different to that achieved with monofocal lenses (unaided VA worse than 6/6: pooled RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.03; eyes = 682; studies = 8). People receiving multifocal lenses may achieve better near vision (RR for unaided near VA worse than J3/J4 was 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.58; eyes = 782; studies = 8). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and high heterogeneity (I² = 93%) although all included studies favoured multifocal lenses with respect to this outcome.People receiving multifocal lenses may be less spectacle dependent (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; eyes = 1000; studies = 10). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias and evidence of publication bias (skewed funnel plot). There was also high heterogeneity (I² = 67%) but all studies favoured multifocal lenses. We did not additionally downgrade for this.Adverse subjective visual phenomena were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with a multifocal IOL compared with monofocals (RR for glare 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93; eyes = 544; studies = 7, low-certainty evidence and RR for haloes 3.58, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.46; eyes = 662; studies = 7; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was no evidence for any important differences in distance VA between the groups (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; eyes = 186; studies = 1), unaided intermediate VA (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; eyes = 181; studies = 1) and unaided near VA (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; eyes = 186; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. People receiving multifocal lenses were less likely to be spectacle dependent (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53; eyes = 262; studies = 2) but more likely to report problems with glare (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.73; eyes = 187; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. In one study, the investigators noted that more people in the multifocal group underwent IOL exchange in the first year after surgery (6 participants with multifocal vs 0 participants with monovision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs although there is uncertainty as to the size of the effect. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs, such as glare and haloes, will vary between people. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.

Vision-related quality of life in patients receiving intravitreal ranibizumab injections in routine clinical practice: baseline data from the German OCEAN study

Background

Vision-related quality of life (vrQoL) is advancing more and more into the focus of interest in ophthalmological clinical research. However, to date only little information is available about vrQoL from large non-interventional studies in terms of "real-world evidence". The purpose of this investigation was to describe baseline VFQ-25 visual function scores, to evaluate whether they differ from previous phase III clinical trials, to determine which contributing factors (e.g. indication, age, gender) affect VFQ-25 scores and to identify its impact on driving.

Methods

The non-interventional OCEAN study (Observation of treatment patterns with LuCEntis and real life ophthalmic monitoring, including optional OCT in Approved iNdications) is the largest ophthalmic study conducted in Germany, to evaluate the real world situation of patients treated with ranibizumab (NCT02194803). The NEI-VFQ-25 questionnaire was conducted at baseline, months 4, 12 and 24. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse the baseline data. ANOVA was performed to evaluate the impact of various contributing factors on composite and selected subscale scores.

Results

Overall, 4844 (84.1 %) of all 5760 OCEAN patients completed the VFQ-25 questionnaire at baseline. Thereof, 3414 treatment-naïve patients were further analysed. Overall, the VFQ subscore general health was most affected by the ocular disease, followed by general vision. No major differences were detected in comparison to corresponding VFQ-25 scores of previous phase III clinical trials, except in DME patients, or with respect to possible contributing factors. A tendency towards a more decreased VFQ-25 composite score was observed for nAMD, for elderly patients ≥75 years of age, for female patients, for patients with low baseline visual acuity (VA; <50 letters) and for those with statutory health insurance. Indication, age, gender, baseline VA (all p <0.01) and the interaction of age and indication, as well as baseline VA and indication (p <0.01 each) had a significant impact on composite, general vision and distance vision scores (ANOVA). About 10 % of patients gave up driving due to eyesight issues.

Conclusions

The knowledge of a patient’s subjective disease burden is crucial to understanding anxieties and mental anguish. Additionally, the understanding of the impact of various contributing factors on the VFQ-25 scores and the extent to which they can be influenced help to optimize patient care. It demonstrates the need for medical and mental support by all medical staff, to encourage patients’ compliance with a comprehensive anti-VEGF therapy, to increase BCVA and, consecutively, VFQ-25 scores.

Trial registration

NCT02194803

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0536-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Visual Outcomes After Cataract Surgery: Multifocal Versus Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual outcomes, spectacle independence, and quality of life among nonastigmatic and astigmatic patients who received AcrySof IQ ReSTOR toric or nontoric multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX) compared with those who received commercially available nontoric monofocal IOLs after bilateral cataract removal.

METHODS

This randomized, patient- and observer-technician-masked study was conducted at 20 sites in Europe. Patients were randomized to receive monofocal (nontoric only) or multifocal (nontoric or toric, as needed) IOLs. Primary efficacy endpoints included percentage of patients achieving binocular uncorrected distance and near acuity of 0.1 logMAR or better (20/25 Snellen), spectacle independence, and scores on the National Eye Institute Refractive Error and Quality of Life questionnaire domains. Safety endpoints included adverse events and refractive error within 0.5 and 1.0 diopters.

RESULTS

In the multifocal group (n = 108) versus the monofocal group (n = 100), significantly more patients achieved uncorrected distance and near acuity of 0.1 logMAR or better (45.7% vs 2.1%; P < .0001) and spectacle independence (73.3% vs 25.3%; P < .0001) at 6 months. The percentage of patients who achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/40 or better at 6 months was 92% in the multifocal group and 97% in the monofocal group. National Eye Institute Refractive Error and Quality of Life scores were significantly better for dependence on correction in the multifocal group (P < .0001) and for glare in the monofocal group (P = .0157); other domain scores were similar between groups. No significant trends in study device-related adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Monofocal and multifocal IOLs provided good clinical outcomes. More patients receiving multifocal IOLs attained better uncorrected visual acuity at a range of distances and spectacle independence compared with patients who received monofocal IOLs. Monofocal IOLs were associated with better patient-reported scores for glare compared with multifocal IOLs; however, scores for patient satisfaction were significantly better in the multifocal group.

Visual Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence with a Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual outcomes following implantation of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and to analyze their correlation with patient satisfaction and ease of performing daily tasks.

METHODS

This was a prospective study enrolling 100 eyes of 50 patients undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of trifocal IOL AT LISA tri 839MP. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. Postoperatively, a questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction with regard to surgical outcome, spectacle independence, perception of photic phenomena, and ease of performing some vision-related activities.

RESULTS

A total of 91%, 87%, and 79% of eyes achieved a monocular uncorrected distance, near, and intermediate visual acuity of 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better, respectively. After the surgery, 96% of the patients could perform their daily activities without problems. The mean spectacle independence scores for reading, doing computer work, and for distance were 10.33 ± 12.47, 5.71 ± 11.90, and 3.92 ± 9.77, respectively (scale: 0 = no spectacles needed; 40 = spectacles always needed). No correlation was found between spectacle independence and visual outcome (-0.101 ≤ r ≤ 0.244, p ≥ 0.087). Mean scores (0 = no symptoms; 40 = strong symptoms) for glare at night, ghost images, and halos were 15.15 ± 12.02, 4.49 ± 7.92, and 13.34 ± 10.82, respectively. No correlation was found between photic phenomena and visual outcome (-0.199 ≤ r ≤ 0.209, p ≥ 0.150). A total of 80% of patients reported satisfaction with the surgery outcome, and 86% would recommend the surgery to friends and family.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the AT LISA tri 839MP IOL after cataract surgery provides effective visual restoration associated with a minimal level of photic phenomena, a positive impact on the performance of vision-related daily activities, and a high level of postoperative patient satisfaction.

Optimal incision sites to reduce corneal aberration variations after small incision phacoemulsification cataract surgery

AIM

To analyze the effect of steep meridian small incision phacoemulsification cataract surgery on anterior, posterior and total corneal wavefront aberration.

METHODS

Steep meridian small incision phacoemulsification cataract surgery was performed in age-related cataract patients which were divided into three groups according to the incision site: 12 o'clock, 9 o'clock and between 9 and 12 o'clock (BENT) incision groups. The preoperative and 3-month postoperative root mean square (RMS) values of anterior, posterior and total corneal wavefront aberration including coma, spherical aberration, and total higher-order aberrations (HOAs), were measured by Pentacam scheimpflug imaging. The mean preoperative and postoperative corneal wavefront aberrations were documented.

RESULTS

Total corneal aberration and total lower-order aberrations decreased significantly in three groups after operation. RMS value of total HOAs decreased significantly postoperatively in the 12 o'clock incision group (P<0.001). Corneal spherical aberration was statistically significantly lower after steep meridian small incision phacoemulsification cataract surgery in BENT incision group (P<0.05) and Pearson correlation analysis indicated that spherical aberration changes had no significant relationship with total astigmatism changes in all three corneal incision location.

CONCLUSION

Corneal incision of phacoemulsification cataract surgery can affect corneal wavefront aberration. The 12 o'clock corneal incision eliminated more HOAs and the spherical aberrations decreased in BENT incision group obviously when we selected steep meridian small incision. Cataract lens replacement using wavefront-corrected intraocular lens combined with optimized corneal incision site would improve ocular aberration results.

Clinical outcomes and optical performance of four differentmultifocal intraocular lenses

BACKGROUND/AIM

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and optical performance of 4 different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety eyes of 51 patients who received Reviol MFM 611, Reviol MFM 625, Acri.LISA, and ReSTOR SN6AD3 multifocal IOLs after cataract surgery were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were similar in terms of age, sex, cataract hardness and axial length. The mean outcome measures were uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate and near visual acuity (DCIVA, DCNVA), intra or postoperative complications, and contrast sensitivity (CS) results under mesopic conditions. The mean follow up period was 10.5 months (range: 6-12 months).

RESULTS

All cases were within ± 0.75 D of emmetropia. Postoperative increase in UDVA and DCNVA was statistically significant in all groups. The Acri.LISA group showed slightly lower DCIVA compared with the other IOLs. CS was clinically similar between the groups. None of the patients developed any early or late postoperative complication or neuroadaptation problem, which necessitated explantation of the lens.

CONCLUSION

All four multifocal lens designs provided satisfactory visual functions and CS results in patients who fulfilled the criteria for multifocal lens implantation.

Visual function after implantation of a diffractive aspheric trifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate distance, intermediate, and near vision after bilateral implantation of a diffractive aspheric trifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

This study enrolled 204 eyes of 102 patients who had bilateral implantation of the AT LISA tri 839MP IOL. Monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (4 meters), monocular and binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) (30, 40 centimeters), binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) (50, 60, 70 centimeters), the defocus curve, and binocular photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare were evaluated over 6 months.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in visual acuity outcomes between follow-up visits were found at any distance evaluated (p&gt;0.05). Six months postoperatively, the mean monocular UDVA and UNVA were comparable to preoperative CDVA and DCNVA, respectively. All patients achieved a binocular CDVA of 20/25 or better. The mean binocular DCIVA ranged from 0.11 ± 0.11 (70 cm) to 0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR (50 cm). The mean binocular DCNVA was 20/25 or better in nearly 87% of patients. The defocus curve showed a wide range of useful vision, with no statistically significant differences in visual acuity at intermediate distances (p = 0.151). Mesopic contrast sensitivity was lower than under photopic conditions, particularly at medium and high spatial frequencies (p&lt;0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation of this trifocal IOL provides good visual outcomes at far, intermediate, and near distances, being an effective solution to reduce spectacle dependence after lensectomy.

A review of the surgical options for the correction of presbyopia

Presbyopia is an age-related eye condition where one of the signs is the reduction in the amplitude of accommodation, resulting in the loss of ability to change the eye's focus from far to near. It is the most common age-related ailments affecting everyone around their mid-40s. Methods for the correction of presbyopia include contact lens and spectacle options but the surgical correction of presbyopia still remains a significant challenge for refractive surgeons. Surgical strategies for dealing with presbyopia may be extraocular (corneal or scleral) or intraocular (removal and replacement of the crystalline lens or some type of treatment on the crystalline lens itself). There are however a number of limitations and considerations that have limited the widespread acceptance of surgical correction of presbyopia. Each surgical strategy presents its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages. For example, lens removal and replacement with an intraocular lens may not be preferable in a young patient with presbyopia without a refractive error. Similarly treatment on the crystalline lens may not be a suitable choice for a patient with early signs of cataract. This article is a review of the options available and those that are in development stages and are likely to be available in the near future for the surgical correction of presbyopia.

Light-distortion analysis as a possible indicator of visual quality after refractive lens exchange with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To study the perception of light distortion after refractive lens exchange (RLE) with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Clínica Oftalmológica das Antas, Porto, Portugal.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

METHODS

Refractive lens exchange was performed with implantation of an AT Lisa 839M (trifocal) or 909MP (bifocal toric) IOL, the latter if corneal astigmatism was more than 0.75 diopter (D). The postoperative visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated. A prototype light-distortion analyzer was used to quantify the postoperative light-distortion indices. A control group of eyes in which a Tecnis ZCB00 1-piece monofocal IOL was implanted had the same examinations.

RESULTS

A trifocal or bifocal toric IOL was implanted in 66 eyes. The control IOL was implanted in 18 eyes. All 3 groups obtained a significant improvement in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (P < .001) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (P = .001). The mean uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was 0.123 logMAR with the trifocal IOL and 0.130 logMAR with the bifocal toric IOL. The residual refractive cylinder was less than 1.00 D in 86.7% of cases with the toric IOL. The mean light-distortion index was significantly higher in the multifocal IOL groups than in the monofocal group (P < .001), although no correlation was found between the light-distortion index and CDVA.

CONCLUSIONS

The multifocal IOLs provided excellent UDVA and functional UNVA despite increased light-distortion indices. The light-distortion analyzer reliably quantified a subjective component of vision distinct from visual acuity; it may become a useful adjunct in the evaluation of visual quality obtained with multifocal IOLs.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Clinical outcomes with a new microincisional diffractive multifocal IOL

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the refractive outcomes and the optical performance as well as the quality of life in patients implanted with a new diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

Prospective, clinical study including 41 cases of patients who underwent cataract surgery and were divided in two groups: group 1, including 20 eyes implanted with the multifocal IOL SeeLens MF (Hanita Lenses, Israel); group 2, 21 eyes implanted with the Acrysof SA60AT IOL. Visual acuity, defocus curve, intraocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity function and quality of life were assessed during a follow up period of 6 months.

RESULTS

Significant improvement was observed in the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) in both groups (p < 0.02). The multifocal group showed better results in terms of uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) (p < 0.01). Comparison of both groups showed better visual acuities for the multifocal IOL group in defocus levels from -3.0 D to -1.50 D (p ≤ 0.01). At 6 months, there was a significant reduction of the internal higher order aberrations (p ≤ 0.04). A significant increase in scotopic contrast sensitivity was detected for 6 cycles/° spatial frequency during follow up (p = 0.04), but no significant changes were observed for the rest of spatial frequencies (p ≥ 0.06). Visual Functioning Index (VF-14) questionnaire showed that patients reported high levels of satisfaction when performing daily tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

The SeeLens MF IOL is able to successfully restore distance, near and intermediate visions after cataract surgery. It also provides functional intermediate vision with optimal intraocular optical quality.

Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes after bilateral implantation of toric intraocular lenses with or without a multifocal component

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes between patients with a multifocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) and those with a monofocal toric IOL.

SETTING

Hayashi Eye Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.

DESIGN

Prospective case-control series.

METHODS

Eyes with preoperative corneal astigmatism between 0.75 diopter (D) and 2.82 D scheduled for implantation of a diffractive multifocal toric IOL (Restor SND1T) or monofocal toric IOL (Acrysof SN6AT) were recruited. Three months postoperatively, visual acuity at various distances, contrast visual acuity, and refractive outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

Each group comprised 66 eyes (33 patients). Postoperatively, the mean refractive astigmatism decreased to 0.71 D in the multifocal group and 0.74 D in the monofocal group. The mean monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected near visual acuity at 0.3 m and intermediate visual acuity at 0.5 m were significantly better in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group (P≤.0011). The uncorrected and corrected visual acuities at other distances were similar between groups except at 1.0 m. Binocular photopic and mesopic contrast visual acuities at high to moderate contrasts did not differ significantly between groups; however, acuities at low contrasts were worse in the multifocal group (P≤.0429).

CONCLUSION

Diffractive multifocal toric IOL implantation decreased refractive astigmatism to an acceptable range in eyes with moderate corneal astigmatism and provided useful visual acuity (≥20/40) at any distance and significantly better near and intermediate visual acuity than a monofocal toric IOL.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lens

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate visual performance, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction in patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of the Tecnis ZMB00 diffractive multifocal IOL (intraocular lens).

Material/Methods

This was a prospective study of 40 eyes of 20 patients with an age range from 48 to 67 years and undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the diffractive 1-piece IOL Tecnis ZMB00 (Abbott Medical Optics) in 1 eye and 3 weeks later in the other eye. The following parameters were evaluated at 3 and 6 months after the operation: binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, UNVA), uncorrected binocular photopic and mesopic distance and photopic near contrast sensitivity (CSV-1000), subjective symptoms, and patient satisfaction (VF-14).

Results

No significant change was observed in logMAR UDVA between 3 and 6 months postoperatively (−0.11±0.14 vs. −0.10±0.13, p>0.05). In contrast, UNVA (0.06±0.12 vs. −0.02±0.12, p=0.004) and UIVA (0.12±0.15 vs. 0.07±0.11, p=0.005) in this period improved significantly. At 3 and 6 months after surgery, 85% of patients no longer needed to wear corrective lenses. Contrast sensitivity under different conditions was within normal age-matched limits, with significant improvements for some spatial frequencies at 3 and 6 months after surgery (p<0.04). Mean overall patient satisfaction was 9.39±1.06 and 9.19±1.20 (scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best score) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Low level of halo perception was reported in 75% of patients.

Conclusions

The Tecnis ZMB00 IOL provides an effective restoration of the distance, intermediate, and near visual function, allowing patients to be totally free of need to wear corrective lenses and providing high levels of patient satisfaction.

Contrast visual acuity after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: aspheric versus spherical design

AIM

To evaluate contrast visual acuity (CVA) after implantation of an aspheric apodized diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) or a spherical apodized diffractive IOL in cataract surgery.

METHOD

This prospective randomized controlled study with a 12-month follow-up compared the results of cataract surgery with implantation of an aspheric AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD3 IOL (30 eyes) and a spherical AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 IOL (30 eyes). CVA with best distance correction was measured at 4 contrast levels (100%, 25%, 10% and 5%) under 3 levels of chart luminance [250, 85 and 25 candelas per square meter (cd/m(2))] using a multi-functional visual acuity tester (MFVA-100).

RESULTS

At 12 months after surgery, there were no statistically significant differences in 100% CVA and 25% CVA under 250cd/m(2) (P 100%=0.875 and P 25%=0.057) and 85cd/m(2) (P 100%=0.198 and P 25%=0.193) between the aspheric group and the spherical group. However, the 10% CVA and 5% CVA were significant better in aspheric group than spherical group under 250cd/m(2) (P 10%=0.042 and P 5%=0.007) and 85cd/m(2) (P 10%=0.002 and P 5%=0.039). Under the luminance level of 25cd/m(2), no significant differences was found in the 100% CVA between the 2 group (P 100%=0.245), while aspheric group had better visual acuity in the remaining 3 contracts (P 25%=0.023, P 10%=0.026 and P 5%=0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

[corrected] The aspheric AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD3 IOL provided patients with better low-contrast visual acuity than the spherical AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3 IOL.