Light-adjustable intraocular lens in post-LASIK and post-traumatic cataract patient

Visual Outcomes of a Second-Generation, Enhanced UV Protected Light Adjustable Lens in Cataract Patients with Previous LASIK and/or PRK

Purpose

To report on the visual outcomes of the second-generation (ActivShieldTM) Light Adjustable Lens (LAL) used in cataract surgery for patients with a history of laser refractive surgery (LASIK and/or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK]) using a co-managed, open-access methodology.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective case series of consecutive patients with history of laser refractive surgery implanted with the second-generation LAL with an emmetropic target were included in the study. Following surgery, all patients received their ultraviolet (UV) light treatments at a separate open-access facility through a co-managed arrangement. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), and residual cylinder for eyes with an emmetropic refractive target were the primary outcome measures as documented at the patient's final, stable, refractive postoperative exam.

Results

Thirty-three patients (34 eyes) with a history of laser refractive surgery were included in the study and implanted with the second-generation LAL with a postoperative emmetropic refractive target. Twenty-eight (82.4%) saw 20/20 or better and 9 (26.5%) saw 20/15 or better. The mean SE was 0.01 ± 0.31 D and 33 (97.1%) were within ±0.50 D SE of plano. The mean residual cylinder was -0.28 ± 0.32 D and 30 (88.2%) were within ±0.50 D.

Conclusion

Use of the second-generation LAL was efficacious in cataract surgical patients with a history of LASIK and/or PRK using a co-managed, open-access methodology.

Visual Outcomes of an Enhanced UV Protected Light Adjustable Lens Using a Novel Co-Managed, Open-Access Methodology

Purpose

To report on the safety and visual acuity (VA) outcomes using a co-managed, open-access methodology with a second-generation (ActivShield^TM) Light Adjustable Lens (LAL 2.0).

Patients and Methods

This retrospective observational case series of consecutive patients implanted with the LAL 2.0 choosing an emmetropic target in at least one eye were included in the study. All patients were co-managed with light treatments occurring at an open-access facility. Exclusion criteria included pathology of the macula and/or cornea with reduced best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The primary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), and residual cylinder for emmetropic goal eyes at the final 3- to 9-month postoperative visit.

Results

Thirty-three patients (62 eyes) were included in the study and implanted with the LAL 2.0. Thirty-three (53.2%) eyes had previous corneal refractive treatment(s) with 22 (66.7%) having no original historical refractive records available. Thirty-six (58.1%) total eyes and 20 (32.3%) postrefractive eyes had an emmetropic refractive target. Of all the emmetropic goal eyes, 35 (97.2%) saw 20/20 or better and 36 (100%) were within ±0.50 D SE of plano and had a mean cylinder of −0.15 ± 0.26 D. Of the postrefractive emmetropic goal eyes, 19 (95%) saw 20/20 or better, 20 (100%) were within ±0.50 D SE of plano and had a mean cylinder of −0.17 ± 0.28 D.

Conclusion

A co-managed, open-access methodology using the LAL 2.0 was safe and efficacious even in challenging postrefractive clinical scenarios.

Use of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses in patients with prior corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Corneal refractive surgery has achieved spectacle-free vision for millions of patients, but this aging population is now developing cataracts. Many of these patients may wish to avoid reliance on glasses after cataract surgery. Presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) offer a solution, but corneal changes after refractive surgery may compound higher order aberrations and dysphotopic symptoms associated with these IOLs. This review aims to discuss potential factors that could aid in determining suitable postkeratorefractive candidates for presbyopia-correcting IOLs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies investigating which preoperative measures influence outcomes are lacking. The few studies that have examined presbyopia-correcting IOLs in postkeratorefractive patients report that satisfactory outcomes are possible. However, recommendations for preoperative thresholds appear limited to expert opinion and studies involving virgin corneas.

SUMMARY

As the number of presbyopia-correcting IOLs and postkeratorefractive patients grows, continued investigation into relevant preoperative factors and appropriate IOLs is required to make evidence-based decisions. The current literature shows that with rigorous counseling and appropriate patient selection, presbyopia-correcting IOLs can provide postkeratorefractive patients with satisfactory results and spectacle independence. In addition, the development of postoperative modifiable IOLs may prove to be the preferred option.

Photorefractive keratectomy after cataract surgery in uncommon cases: long-term results

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the excimer laser correction of the residual refractive errors after cataract extraction with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in uncommon cases.

METHODS

Totally 24 patients with high residual refractive error after cataract surgery with IOL implantation were examined. Twenty-two patients had a history of phacoemulsification and IOL implantation, and two had extra-capsular cataract extraction with IOL implantation. Detailed examination of preoperative medical records was done to explain the origin of the post-cataract refractive errors. All patients underwent photorefractire keratectomy (PRK) enhancement. The mean outcome measures were refraction, uncorretted visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and corneal transparency and follow up ranged from 1 to 8y.

RESULTS

The principal causes of residual ametropia was inexact IOL calculation in abnormal eyes with high myopia and congenital lens abnormalities, followed by corneal astigmatism both suture induced and preexisting. After cataract surgery and before the laser enhancement the mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -0.56±3 D ranging from -4.62 to +2.25 D in high myopic patients, instead it was -1±1.73 D ranging from -3.25 to +3.75 D in the astigmatic eyes, with a mean cylinder of -3.75±0 ranging from -3 to +5.50 D. After laser refractive surgery the mean SE was 0.1±0.73, ranging from -0.50 to +1.50 in the myopic group, and it was -0.50±0.57 ranging from -1.25 to +0.50 in astigmatic patients, with a mean cylinder of -0.25±0.75. In myopic patients the mean UCVA and BCVA were 0.038±0.072 logMAR and 0.018±0.04 respectively, both ranging from 0.10 to 0.0. In astigmatic patients, the mean UCVA and BCVA were 0.213±0.132 and 0.00±0.0 respectively, UCVA ranging from 0.50 to 0.22 and BCVA was 0.00. All patients presented normal corneal transparency. No ocular hypertension was detected and no corneal haze was observed. All registered values remained stable also at the end line evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The excimer laser treatment of residual refractive errors after cataract surgery with IOL implantation in abnormal eyes resulted in satisfactory and stable visual outcome with good safety and efficacy.

Adjustable intraocular lens power technology

We present an overview of the adjustable intraocular lens (IOL) technologies that are available or under development. This includes IOL technologies that can be adjusted using secondary surgical procedures, such as the multicomponent IOL, the mechanically adjustable IOL, and the repeatedly adjustable IOL; IOLs that can be adjusted noninvasively in the postoperative setting, such as the magnetically adjustable IOL, the liquid crystal IOLs with wireless control; and IOLs that can be adjusted using the femtosecond laser or 2-photon chemistry. Finally, we discuss the preclinical and clinical studies of the light-adjustable intraocular lens (LAL) that is available commercially in Europe and Mexico and in the final stages of clinical evaluation in the United States. The general principles of each technology, as well as their research status, are described.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

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