Defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOL designs: Diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive, and extended-depth-of-focus

Clinical Outcomes of a New Hydrophobic Trifocal Intraocular Lens with Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate in Cataract Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcomes of new hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens with hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the Korean population.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, and observational study evaluated the clinical outcomes of 80 eyes of 40 patients with age-related cataract underwent cataract surgery using CNWT (Clareon PanOptix). Assessment included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (at 60cm), near visual acuity (at 40 and 33 cm), uncorrected defocus curves, questionnaires evaluating photic phenomena, spectacle independence, and spectacle free satisfaction.

RESULTS

At postoperative 3 months, mean uncorrected binocular visual acuities were 0.04, 0.04, 0.03 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) at far, intermediate, and near distances, respectively. All patients achieved uncorrected binocular visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR or better. Monocular and binocular defocus curve indicated a mean visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR or better at the defocus range of +1.0 to - 3.0 diopters (100 to 33 cm) and +1.0 to - 3.5 diopters (100 to 28 cm). High spectacle independence was observed at all distances, with 37.5% patients reporting photic phenomena.

CONCLUSIONS

The Clareon PanOptix intraocular lens has shown positive clinical outcomes, providing a viable option for cataract surgery. These lenses effectively address patients' visual needs, especially in intermediate and near distance tasks, reducing dependence on glasses.

Retinal Image Quality Through an Operating Microscope With Wavefront Shaping Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens in Model Eye

PURPOSE

To compare the quality of images of gratings placed in a model eye viewed through an extended depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) to that of diffractive bifocal IOL or monofocal IOL.

DESIGN

Experimental laboratory investigation.

METHODS

Nondiffractive wavefront shaping EDoF (CNAET0, Alcon Laboratories), echelette-designed EDoF (ZXR00V, Johnson & Johnson Vision), diffractive bifocal IOL with low power addition (SV25T, Alcon Laboratories), or monofocal IOL (CNA0T0, Alcon Laboratories) was placed in a fluid-filled model eye. A United States Air Force Resolution Grating Target was glued to the posterior surface of the model eye and viewed through a flat or a wide-angle contact lens. The contrast of the gratings viewed through the EDoF or multifocal IOLs was compared to that through the monofocal IOL. A wavefront analyzer was used to measure the spherical power of the central 4.5 mm optics of the EDoF, multifocal, and monofocal IOLs. The distribution of the dioptric power and the dioptric power map were compared.

RESULTS

The gratings observed through the flat contact lens with CNAET0, ZXR00V, or SV25T were slightly blurred when viewed through the multifocal optics. The blurred area was in the circumferential area of CNAET0, the central area of SV25T, and the peripheral area of ZXR00V. The mean contrast was 0.258 ± 0.020 for CNAET0, 0.227 ± 0.025 for ZXR00V, and 0.221 ± 0.020 for SV25T for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating. The contrast was significantly lower for ZXR00V (P = .004) and SV25T (P = .004) than 0.303 ± 0.015 for CNA0T0 but the differences were not significant for CNAET0. For the wide-angle contact lens, the contrast for CNAET0 was 0.182 ± 0.009, for ZXR00V was 0.162 ± 0.011, and for SV25T was 0.163 ± 0.007 for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating, and none was significantly different from 0.188 ± 0.012 for CNA0T0. The dioptric variations of CNAET0 indicated a ring-shaped area of higher power corresponding to the circumferential blurred zone observed through the flat contact lens.

CONCLUSIONS

The wavefront shaping and echelette-designed EDoF-IOLs reduce the contrast of the grating more than the monofocal IOL when viewed through the flat contact lens. The degree of reduction depended on the design of the extended-focus optics. The difference was less through the wide-angle contact lens.

Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced monofocal IOLs, post-cataract surgery through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from the past 5 years. Parameters such as binocular visual acuities, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and optical quality were used to evaluate efficacy and safety. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17.0 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comprising 2465 subjects were included. Trifocal IOLs exhibited superior uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) compared to monofocal IOLs (MD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22). Both trifocal (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOLs group MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.06) and EDOF IOLs (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.09) showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) than monofocal IOLs. Trifocal IOLs ranked highest in spectacle independence at various distances (AT LISAtri 839MP group: SUCRA 97.5% for distance, 80.7% for intermediate; AcrySof IQ PanOptix group: SUCRA 83.0% for near).

CONCLUSIONS

For cataract patients who want to treat presbyopia, trifocal IOLs demonstrated better visual acuity and spectacle independence at near distances. Different types of trifocal IOL characteristics differ. EDOF and enhanced monofocal IOLs have improved visual quality at intermediate distances.Therefore, It is very important to select the appropriate IOLs based on the lens characteristics and patient needs.

Using adaptive optics to optimize the spherical aberration of eyes implanted with EDOF and enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of change in ocular spherical aberration (SA) with adaptive optics on visual acuity (VA) at different defocus after implantation of extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTINGS

Narayana Nethralaya Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal, observational.

METHODS

80 eyes (40 patients) that had cataract surgery were included in the study. 40 eyes were implanted with Eyhance EDOF IOLs and the remaining with Vivity EDOF IOLs. Baseline ocular aberrations were measured with a visual adaptive optics aberrometer, then the optimal SA was determined by increasing it in steps of -0.01 μm up to -0.1 μm until the maximum improvement in near distance VA was observed for a given eye. Then the defocus curve for each eye was measured after modifying the ocular SA by magnitude equal to optimal SA.

RESULTS

Most of the eyes accepted a negative induced SA of -0.05 μm (Eyhance group: 67.6%; Vivity group, 45.2%). In the Eyhance group (dominant eyes), VA improved at -2 diopters (D) ( P < .02) only and degraded at 0 D, +0.5 D, and +1 D defocus ( P < .05). In the Vivity group, the VA remained unchanged at all defocus ( P > .05). In the Eyhance group (nondominant eyes), VA improved at -3.5 D defocus only and degraded at +1.5 D and +2 D defocus ( P < .05). In the Vivity group, VA improved at -2.5 D defocus ( P < .05) only.

CONCLUSIONS

A negative induced SA of -0.05 μm in implanted eyes was optimal for a slight improvement in distance-corrected near and intermediate VA without any significant decrease in baseline distance-corrected VA.

Clinical results after binocular implantation of a unique nondiffractive enhanced monofocal intraocular lens designed for enhanced monovision to increase the depth of focus

PURPOSE

To provide the reports of a pilot study to assess the visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity with RayOne enhanced monovision (EMV), a unique nondiffractive enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) to increase the range of focus.

METHODS

A retrospective case series study was conducted by analyzing 25 patients (50 eyes) who had bilateral implantation of EMV IOL after cataract surgery. Data collected included biometry, spherical equivalent (SE), and VA for near, intermediate, and distance. Patients were reviewed at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after surgery. Contrast sensitivity (CS) was checked at 1 month.

RESULTS

The study included 14 males (56%). Age of participants was 61.4 ± 7.4 years. Uniocular uncorrected near and distance VA improved from 0.33 ± 0.13 to 0.05 ± 0.07 and from 0.63 ± 0.31 to 0.05 ± 0.10 log of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) at 1 month (P < 0.001 for both). Binocular uncorrected near and distance VA improved from 0.09 ± 0.18 and 0.14 ± 0.27 to 0.05 ± 0.06 and 0.00 ± 0.09 logMAR, respectively (P < 0.001). SE changed from - 0.23 ± 2.55 to - 0.33 ± 0.46. CS at 3 months was 1.74 ± 0.21. At 1 month, 48 eyes (96%) achieved uncorrected intermediate VA 6/15 (0.4 logMAR) or better. When comparing eyes that had uncorrected intermediate vision of ≥ 0.2 (6/9 or better) to eyes that had < 0.2 logMAR at 1 month, there was no difference between groups with respect to baseline parameters.

CONCLUSION

The pilot study shows that the nondiffractive EMV IOL is safe, effective, and stable, providing excellent distance and intermediate vision and good near vision.

Anterior eye parameters and lens thickness measured by an intraoperative OCT and a swept-source OCT: comparison of hyperopic, emmetropic and myopic eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate if anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) measured by two different devices are affected by different eye lengths.

METHODS

ACD and LT of 251 eyes (44 hyperopic, 60 myopic, 147 emmetropic) of 173 patients received with an iOCT-guided femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery (FLACS) and the IOL Master 700 were compared.

RESULTS

ACD measured with the IOL Master 700 was -0.026 ± 0.125 mm smaller (p = 0.001) than that with the iOCT for all eye-groups (hyperopic: p = 0.601, emmetropic: p = 0.003; myopic: p = 0.094). However, differences in all groups were not clinically relevant. LT measurements (all eyes: -0.0642 ± 0.0504 mm) shows a statistically significant difference in all evaluated groups (p < 0.001). Only myopic eyes showed a clinically relevant difference in LT.

CONCLUSION

The two devices show no clinically relevant differences in the eye-length groups (myopic, emmetropic, and hyperopic) for all ACD measurements. LT data shows a clinically relevant difference only for the group of myopic eyes.

Increasing depth of focus with allogeneic presbyopic inlays: 3-year results

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the safety and efficacy of allogenic corneal inlays designed to increase the depth of focus (DoF) in treated eyes.

SETTINGS

Medipol University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

This study includes 50 eyes of 25 patients with a follow-up of 3 years. Emmetropic patients with presbyopia had implantation of allogenic corneal inlays in the nondominant eye. The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were evaluated in all eyes. A subjective visual acuity test system (Multifocal Lens Analyzer 3.0 application) was used to analyze the DoF by measuring the defocus curves.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the treated and fellow eyes in UDVA and CDVA was found, whereas UNVA was significantly better in the treated eyes ( P = .20, P = .07, P < .01, respectively). Comparing to the preoperative CDVA, there was a 1-line decrease in CDVA in 6 (%24) patients. The mean defocus curves reveal a DoF of 1.1 diopters (D) for the untreated eye at the logMAR = 0.2 threshold. By contrast, the mean DoF of the treated eye and binocularly was 2.8 D. The areas under the curve were significantly better in the near, intermediate, and total distances in the treated eyes, whereas it was better for the far distances in the untreated eyes. All values were significant ( P = .023 total, P < .01 others).

CONCLUSIONS

Allogenic presbyopic inlay implantation may be safe and provided a clinically and statistically significant increase in the DoF leading to good far, intermediate, and near-visual acuity in emmetropic presbyopic patients.

One-year follow-up of a multifocal intraocular lens with optimized elevated phase shift

PURPOSE

To evaluate the standard outcomes of a multifocal intraocular lens (mIOL) with optimized elevated phase shift (EPS).

SETTING

Qvision, Ophthalmology Department, VITHAS Almería, Spain.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational.

METHODS

41 patients, consecutively operated on cataracts or refractive lens exchange with the implantation of the Liberty 640PM (EPS 2.0) and followed during 12 months, were included in the analysis. Retrieved variables were visual acuities at far, intermediate, and near distances; defocus curves (VADC); and prediction error of 4 formulas optimized for IOLMaster 500 and Pentacam AXL Wave. Patient-reported outcomes were also obtained for assessing spectacle independence, satisfaction, bothersome to dysphotopsia, difficulties in daily life tasks, and decision to be operated with the same mIOL.

RESULTS

The median monocular efficacy with best distance correction was 0, 0.1, and 0.1 logMAR at far, intermediate, and near distances, respectively, with patients achieving binocularly a median of 0 logMAR at the 3 distances. VADC showed a depth of field of 3 diopters (D) above 0.2 logMAR with a median increase of 0.07 logMAR from -1.5 to -2.5 D. Complete spectacle independence was achieved at far distance, whereas 97.6% and 85.4% was achieved at intermediate and near distances, respectively. 7.3% of patients were bothered by dysphotopsia, and 92.6% of patients were likely to be operated again.

CONCLUSIONS

EPS 2.0 restored patients' vision in the full range of the depth of field with a nearly monotone decrease of visual performance from far to near, achieving high rates of spectacle independence at all distances and with low positive dysphotopsia rates ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05735990).

Comparison of binocular visual quality in six treatment protocols for bilateral cataract surgery with presbyopia correction: a prospective two-center single-blinded cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postoperative binocular visual quality in six treatment protocols for bilateral age-related cataract surgery with presbyopia correction for clinical decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective two-center single-blinded cohort study, participants from North or South China who underwent bilateral phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation were divided into six protocols: monovision, diffractive bifocal, mixed, refractive bifocal, trifocal, and micro-monovision extended range of vision (EROV). Binocular visual quality was evaluated at 3 months postoperatively, including binocular uncorrected full-range visual acuity, binocular defocus curves (depth of focus [DoF] and area under the curve [AUC]), binocular visual function (fusion function and stereopsis), binocular subjective spectacle independence rates, visual analog scale (VAS) of overall satisfaction, 25-item visual function questionnaire (VFQ-25), and binocular dysphotopsia symptoms.

RESULTS

Of the 300 enrolled patients, 272 (90.7%; 544 eyes) were analyzed. The trifocal protocol showed excellent binocular full-range visual acuity and the best performance for most DoFs and AUCs. The monovision protocol presented the worst binocular visual quality in most perspectives, especially in convergence, distance, and near stereopsis (p < 0.001). The full-range subjective spectacle independence rates were sorted from highest to lowest as follows: trifocal (84.8%), refractive bifocal (80.9%), EROV (80.0%), mixed (73.3%), diffractive bifocal (65.2%), and monovision (32.6%) protocols, with no statistically significant differences between the former five protocols (p > 0.05). The EROV protocol achieved the highest VAS and VFQ-25 scores. The incidence of postoperative binocular dysphotopsia symptoms was comparable in all protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

The trifocal protocol showed the best performance, and the monovision protocol presented the worst performance in most perspectives of binocular visual quality for presbyopia correction. The refractive bifocal, mixed, or EROV protocols can provide an approximate performance as a trifocal protocol. Ophthalmologists can customize therapies using different protocols.

Spatio-chromatic vision with multifocal diffractive intraocular lens

BACKGROUND

This study aims to detect alterations in the spatio-chromatic pseudophakic vision produced by multifocal diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs) and provides a physical interpretation.

METHODS

In vitro characterization of the imaging performance of two diffractive IOLs: AT LISA Tri (Zeiss) and FineVision (PhysIOL) in on-bench model eye illuminated with red (R, 625 nm), green (G, 530 nm) and blue (B, 455 nm) lights. We used the metrics: energy efficiency (EE), area under the modulation transfer function, longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA), and halo intensity. Through-focus (TF) analysis and calculation of the expected defocus curve under white (W) daylight were included. In vivo visual acuity (VA) of 50 pseudophakics (60 eyes) was assessed under W, R, G, B lights at far and near. Two clinical experiments evaluated LCA and R, G, B TF-EE effects on pseudophakic vision and their relative importance.

RESULTS

Clinical mean VA values under W light agreed with the predicted values at far and near for both IOLs. LCA measurements and R, G, B TF-EE curves were consistent with their lens design based on the 0th and 1st diffraction orders operative for far and near vision, respectively. LCA effects were compensated at near but noticed at far (- 0.75 D under B light). We detected strong asymmetry in visual resolution depending on the object distance and the illuminating wavelength-red predominance at far, blue predominance at near-in consistency with the TF-EE measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Diffractive multifocal IOL designs produce asymmetries in the spatio-chromatic vision of pseudophakics beyond the alterations strictly due to LCA. VA asymmetry for far/near object distance under R and B illumination is clinically detectable in subjects implanted with IOLs with 0th and 1st diffraction orders for far and near vision, respectively. Such VA asymmetry cannot be explained solely from the influence of defocus, as would be derived from a chromatic difference of power, but mainly from the wavelength dependence of the EE.

Assessment of Visual Habituation Measured With the Halo & Glare Simulator and Its Impact on Patient Satisfaction Following Quadrifocal IOL Implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the levels of habituation and its influence on outcome satisfaction in patients who underwent bilateral multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

METHODS

A total of 24 patients underwent bilateral multifocal IOL implantation surgery with the AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal diffractive IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) following cataract extraction or for refractive purposes. Data were collected 3 and 6 months after surgery, which included subjective refraction, corrected and uncorrected visual acuity (distance, intermediate, near), a contrast sensitivity test, simulation with the Halo & Glare Simulator (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG), two visual quality surveys, and a slit-lamp examination by an ophthalmologist.

RESULTS

All patients were spectacle independent for distance vision and 92% (n = 22) needed no visual aid for near vision. Minor visual acuity improvement was detected between both examinations at monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (P = .025). Improvements of presence, size, and intensity of visual disturbances were not statistically significant, but overall patient satisfaction (P = .009) and Weber-Contrast sensitivity under mesopic conditions (P = .029) increased significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Diffractive multifocal IOLs are a stable treatment for presbyopia and/or cataract with a high spectacle independence rate. Visual disturbances caused by their optics do not decrease significantly between 3 and 6 months after surgery. Habituation and neuroadaptation play a significant role in patient satisfaction and contrast sensitivity during and possibly beyond that period. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(8):510-517.].

Comparison of visual performance and quality of life with a new nondiffractive EDOF intraocular lens and a trifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To compare visual performance and quality of life (QoL) following bilateral implantation of a new nondiffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a trifocal IOL.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative interventional case series.

METHODS

104 eyes of 52 patients with cataract, bilaterally implanted with a nondiffractive EDOF IOL or a trifocal IOL, were included. Outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance corrected intermediate visual acuity and distance corrected near visual acuity, defocus curves, QoL (Visual Function Index 14), quality of vision (Quality of Vision [QoV] index), contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart), and binocular reading speed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were included in each group. The UDVA and CDVA were better in the EDOF group (0.05 ± 0.04 and 0.01 ± 0.04) than the trifocal group (0.13 ± 0.06 and 0.11 ± 0.07) ( P = .02 and .01). Defocus curves showed that visual acuity was better with the EDOF IOL for vergences at 0.00, -0.50, and -1.00 and better with the trifocal IOL for vergences at -2.50, -3.00, -3.50, and -4.00. Contrast sensitivity scores were similar with both IOLs ( P = .12). The overall mean QoL scores were lower in the EDOF group, indicating a better QoL ( P = .04). The QoV was better in the EDOF group with significantly less glare, halos, and blurry vision ( P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The EDOF IOL performed better at distance, and the trifocal IOL performed better at near. Overall QoL and quality of vision were better with the EDOF IOL.

Visual and patient-reported outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens in highly myopic eyes: a prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the visual and patient-reported outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in highly myopic eyes.

METHODS

Patients with planned cataract removal by phacoemulsification and implantation of a trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP) were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter cohort study. Patients were allocated into three groups according to their axial length (AL): control group, AL < 26 mm; high myopia group, AL 26-28 mm; extreme myopia group, AL ≥ 28 mm. At 3 months post-surgery, data for 456 eyes of 456 patients were collected, including visual acuity, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (CS), visual quality, spectacle independence, and overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

After surgery, the uncorrected distance visual acuity improved from 0.59 ± 0.41 to 0.06 ± 0.12 logMAR (P < 0.001). In all three groups, about 60% of eyes achieved uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better, but significantly fewer eyes in the extreme myopia group achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better (P < 0.05). Defocus curves revealed that the visual acuity was significantly worse in the extreme myopia group than others at 0.00, - 0.50, and - 2.00 diopters (P < 0.05). CS did not differ between the control and high myopia groups but was significantly lower in the extreme myopia group at 3 cycles per degree. The extreme myopia group also had greater higher-order aberrations and coma, lower modulation transfer functions and VF-14 scores, more glare and halos, worse spectacle independence at far distance, and consequently lower patient satisfaction than others (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In eyes with a high degree of myopia (AL < 28 mm), trifocal IOLs have been shown to provide similar visual outcomes to those in non-myopic eyes. However, in extremely myopic eyes, acceptable results may be obtained with trifocal IOLs, but a reduced level of uncorrected distance vision is expected.

Cataracts

94 million people are blind or visually impaired globally, and cataract is the most common cause of blindness worldwide. However, most cases of blindness are avoidable. Cataract is associated with decreased quality of life and reduced life expectancy. Most cases of cataract occur after birth and share ageing and oxidative stress as primary causes, although several non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors can accelerate cataract formation. In most patients, phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation is the preferred treatment and is highly cost-effective. There has been an increase in the use of comprehensive cataract surgical services, including diagnoses, treatment referrals, and rehabilitation. However, global inequity in surgical service quality is still a limitation. Implementation of preoperative risk assessment, risk reduction strategies, and new surgical technologies have made cataract surgery possible at an earlier stage of cataract severity with the expectation of good refractive outcomes. The main challenge is making the service that is currently available to some patients accessible to all by use of universal health coverage.

Clinical Retinal Image Quality of a Non-diffractive Wavefront-Shaping Extended Depth of Focus (Vivity) Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical retinal optical image quality following implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF IOL) (Vivity; Alcon Laboratories, Inc), and to compare it with a monofocal and a trifocal IOL.

METHODS

This prospective, comparative, case-control study included 88 eyes implanted with: (1) 19 monofocal IOLs (AcrySof SA60AT; Alcon Laboratories, Inc); (2) 38 EDOF IOLs (AcrySof IQ Vivity); and (3) 31 trifocal IOLs (AT LISA tri 839MP; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). Total root mean square, ocular lower (LOA) and higher (HOA) order aberrations, point spread function (PSF) Strehl ratio (PSF with LOA), and PSF Strehl ratio excluding LOA (PSF without LOA) were analyzed using a Pyramidal WaveFront-based sensor aberrometer Osiris (Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici) at two different pupil sizes (3 and 4 mm).

RESULTS

The trifocal IOL showed the highest PSF without LOA at both pupil sizes (0.52 ± 0.12 and 0.31 ± 0.07, respectively), followed by the AcrySof SA60AT (0.39 ± 0.10 and 0.27 ± 0.07) and AcrySof IQ Vivity (0.34 ± 0.11 and 0.24 ± 0.09) (P < .001). The AcrySof IQ Vivity and monofocal IOLs were comparable (P > .05). Despite the comparable postoperative low spherical equivalent among the IOL groups, the AT LISA tri 839MP retinal image quality (PSF with LOA) was the most severely affected by such residual refractive errors (dropped to 0.26 ± 0.06 at 3 mm; P < .001) compared to the monofocal AcrySof SA60AT (0.24 ± 0.07 at 3 mm) and EDOF Acrysof IQ Vivity (0.23 ± 0.06 at 3 mm) groups. The PSF with LOA was comparable (P > .05) among the three groups at both the 3-and 4-mm pupil size.

CONCLUSIONS

Although trifocal IOLs provided significantly better retinal image quality if influence of LOA is excluded, they also demonstrated to be the most sensitive to residual refractive errors. Both the EDOF Acrysof IQ Vivity and mono-focal AcrySof SA60AT IOLs showed a comparable retinal image quality, and they are also comparable with trifocal IOLs when considering the clinically real PSF (PSF with LOA). [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(2):103-110.].

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Depth of focus of four novel extended range of vision intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To assess the depth of focus of four latest non-diffractive extended range of vision IOLs on the optical bench. Such comparison had not been done before.

METHODS

We assessed and compared the through focus modulation transfer function (MTF) of the following novel IOLs with a nominal power of 22 D: Acrysof Vivity, LuxSmart Crystal, RayOne EMV and Tecnis Eyhance. An ISO-2 model eye was applied with apertures of 3 and 4.5 mm with monochromatic light of 546 nm. Measurements were done on OptiSpheric IOL PRO 2 optical bench.

RESULTS

For the aperture of 3 mm, Eyhance and RayOne EMV showed the most pronounced peak in MTF with only little enlarged depth of power. Vivity and LuxSmart showed two peaks of about 1.7 D respectively 1.3 D depth of focus, yet reduced MTF and with maxima differently located. For 4.5 mm, MTF values for Eyhance and particularly for RayOne EMV dropped. For Vivity and LuxSmart, only the peak for the secondary focus decreased.

CONCLUSION

Vivity and LuxSmart showed a larger depth of focus for our measuring conditions than Eyhance and RayOne EMV. Correspondingly, the peak MTF was best for Eyhance and RayOne ERV with small aperture. With the larger aperture, RayOne EMV considerably lost performance.

Latest Development in Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: An Update

In recent years, there has been an overwhelming influx of different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs) as treatment for presbyopia. The extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) technology creates a single elongated focal point to enhance depth of focus, in contrast to the multiple foci of multifocal (MF) lenses. In this way, the EDOF lenses aim to reduce photic phenomena, glare, and halos, which have been reported in MF IOLs. A potential disadvantage of this is a blur due to decreased retinal image quality when the amount of the aberrations is increased excessively. Multifocality and EDOF characteristics are not exclusive of each other. Frequently, EDOF IOLs are combined with MF optical designs, a bifocal IOL may exhibit EDOF characteristics, likewise an aspheric monofocal IOL or a diffractive or refractive trifocal IOL. Thus, EDOF lenses are commonly subjected to confusion. A wide range of different types of EDOF lenses are available on the market to surgeons. In this practical update, we aim to clarify what is a true EDOF lens, classify the different types of the EDOF lenses based on their optical principle and review their recently reported outcomes. Comprehensive patient examination and selection, combined with knowledge of the most updated options and adequate patient counseling, can avoid dissatisfaction and yield the desired outcomes.

Analysis of Daily Visual Habits in a Presbyopic Population

Purpose

To evaluate and report the visual habits and requirements of a sample of presbyopic patients using an advanced sensor.

Methods

Transversal study collecting clinical data from 40 presbyopes candidates for presbyopia-correction intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with mean age of 61.0 years (43-80 years). A complete ophthalmological examination was performed in all patients including visual, refractive, an ocular biometric analysis. Furthermore, patients were instructed about the use of the Vivior Monitor system (Vivior AG, Zürich, Switzerland), which consists of a series of sensors attached to the rim of the patient's glasses that capture information about the visual behavior of the patient. This device was worn for a period of 36 hours or more. The data collected were transferred to a database and analyzed.

Results

Mean percentages of time dedicated to distance, intermediate, and near vision were 27.25 ± 11.93% (5-65%), 30.23 ± 9.36% (12-50%), and 42.53 ± 14.96% (13-78%), respectively. Mean percentages of time performing activities under photopic, mesopic, and scotopic conditions were 37.08 ± 23.20% (5-87%), 33.65 ± 13.84% (6-67%), and 29.28 ± 17.03% (4-65%). The percentage of time with digital screens ranged from 2% to 48%. Age was significantly correlated with the percentage of time dedicated to distance vision (r = 0.317, p=0.047) and to activities performed under photopic conditions (r = -0.344, p=0.030).

Conclusions

Distance and illumination conditions used to perform different daily life visual activities vary significantly among presbyopes, with a trend to the dedication of more time to intermediate and near visual activities performed under photopic and mesopic conditions. Data interpretation should be done with care until a proper validation of the device used.

Defocus Curve of Emerging Presbyopic Patients

Purpose

To create a defocus curve of emerging presbyopic patients of various age groups.

Setting

Single site private practice in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Design

This was a non-randomized, prospective study. All subjects were enrolled from healthy volunteers.

Methods

Subjects aged 37-9, 40-42, 43-45 and 46-48 that have 20/20 best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were included. Binocular visual acuity at different defocus steps ranging from +0.5 D to -3 D was measured in each age group. Defocus curves were generated from the mean logMAR visual acuities at each defocus step, by age group.

Results

Of the 60 subjects, 23.3% of subjects were between the ages of 37-39, 26.7% were between the ages of 40-42, 25% of subjects were between ages 43-45, and 25% were between the ages of 46-48. Visual acuity significantly decreased from plano to -3 D defocus steps in all groups (p < 0.0002, p = 0, p = 0 and p = 0). The 46-48-year-old group had worse visual acuity compared to the other three groups from the -1.0 to -2.0 D defocus steps (p = 0.037, p = 0.022 and 0.017, respectively). Starting at a near point of 40cm, the 37-39 group had the best logMAR vision and the 46-48 group had the worst vision (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

The defocus curves of emerging presbyopic individuals demonstrate a decreasing visual acuity at near defocus steps that decreases with age. Defocus curves at different age ranges can help doctors explain various presbyopia treatment options in terms of near point capabilities at various ages.

Analysis of uncorrected near visual acuity after extended depth-of-focus AcrySof® Vivity™ intraocular lens implantation

A newly developed extended-depth-of-focus AcrySof® Vivity™ intraocular lens (IOL), which has a wavefront-shaped anterior surface, has shown a promising outcome in minimizing dysphotopsia, the biggest issue after diffractive type IOL implantation. On the contrary, relatively low uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) has been raised as a demerit of this IOL. However, there is only limited information about the UNVA after Vivity implantation. In the present study, we compared the uncorrected distant and intermediate visual acuity (UDVA and UIVA) and UNVA according to the range of refractive error (RE) from 91 eyes from 91 patients implanted with Vivity IOL. Then we assessed the biometric factors for their association with UNVA from 66 eyes with a RE within ± 0.25 D. The UDVA was worst in eyes with RE < -0.50 D (0.17 ± 0.21), which was significantly worse than in any other group (P < 0.001 for every analysis). The UIVA was worst in eyes with RE of 0.25 to 0.50 D (0.35 ± 0.07 D), which was significantly worse than in eyes with RE of -0.50 to -0.26 D (P = 0.020) and in eyes with RE of -0.25 to -0.01 D (P = 0.028). The UNVA was worst in eyes with RE of 0.25 to 0.50 D (0.40 ± 0.14 D), which was significantly worse than in eyes with RE of -0.50 to -0.26 D (P = 0.022), which suggests that the extent of monovision should be limited up to -0.50 diopter. On univariate analysis for UNVA in eyes with a RE within ± 0.25 D, the anterior chamber depth (R = 0.257; P = 0.037) and pupil size (R = 0.451; P < 0.001) had a statistically significant relation to UNVA, while multivariate analysis showed the pupil size (β = 0.451; P < 0.001) as the sole indicator, suggesting eyes with a small pupil size might receive a UNVA benefit.

Visual outcomes and subjective experience with three intraocular lenses based presbyopia correcting strategies in cataract patients

To compare the visual outcomes and subjective experience of three intraocular lenses (IOL) implant strategies. Retrospective comparative study. This study comprised patients who underwent phacoemulsification and bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (ZXR00; EDOF group), blended implantation of EDOF and bifocal IOL (ZXR00/ZLB00; blended group), and bilateral implantation of trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP; trifocal group). The outcomes included visual acuity (VA), visual defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, quality of life, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction. Follow-up was performed 3 months after the surgery. This study included 114 eyes of 57 patients (20 in EDOF group; 16 in blended group; 21 in trifocal group). Patients in the three groups had high quality of life, patient satisfaction, and good contrast sensitivity. The EDOF group had the worst near VA, but the visual quality was the best. The blended group had good VA and slight photic disturbance. The trifocal group obtained the best whole range of VA, but the photic disturbance was significantly severe than the EDOF group. Both the blended and trifocal groups achieved high spectacle independence, but some patients in the EDOF group need spectacle when dealing with close-range tasks.

Stereopsis and visual acuity: Bilateral trifocal versus blended extended depth of focus and diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare stereopsis and visual acuity (VA) between bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL with a bifocal IOL.

METHODS

This is a non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 74 eyes of 37 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and bilateral implantation of AT LISA tri 839MP IOL (bilateral group; 21 patients) or blended implantation of Tecnis Symfony ZXR00 and Tecnis ZLB00 IOL (blended group; 16 patients). The primary outcomes were stereoacuity and binocular VA. The secondary outcomes were visual defocus curve, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Follow-up was performed 3 months after the surgery.

RESULTS

The mean near stereoacuity was 49.76 ± 22.67 and 120.63 ± 90.94 seconds of arc (arcsec) in the bilateral and blended groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Near stereoacuity was positively correlated with VA difference of two eyes (r = 0.896, P < 0.001). The mean binocular uncorrected visual acuity at 40 cm, 80 cm, 5 m, and corrected distance visual acuity at 5 m of the bilateral and blended groups was not statistically significant different. The bilateral group had better VA at a vergence from -2.5 to -4.0 D. Both groups obtained high quality of life and patient satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSION

The bilateral and blended groups achieved good binocular VA, quality of life, and high patient satisfaction. However, the near stereoacuity of the blended group was worse.

Effect of decentration and tilt on four novel extended range of vision intraocular lenses regarding far distance

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of decentration and tilt on four novel non diffractive extended range of vision intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

Acrysof Vivity, LuxSmart Crystal, RayOne EMV and Tecnis Eyhance were compared on the optical bench (power of 22 D each). Modulation transfer functions were obtained and Strehl ratio was calculated in an ISO-2 model. Apertures of 3 mm and 4.5 mm were applied. For qualitative assessment, United States Airforce (USAF) chart images were evaluated. Additional to centered IOLs, tilt of 5 degrees and decentration of 1 mm were applied.

RESULTS

RayOne EMV was very robust against misalignment but had considerable deterioration of modulation transfer function (MTF) for large aperture with USAF images seriously blurred. Tilt and decentration decreased the performance of Eyhance significantly but had minor impact on the performance of Vivity and LuxSmart. For 4.5 mm aperture, MTF and Strehl ratio decreased markedly for all IOLs compared to 3 mm aperture size. The best MTF and Strehl ratio was obtained for Eyhance IOL well centered for both sizes of aperture.

CONCLUSION

Tilt and decentration had a major impact on the performance of Eyhance only, which performed best of all IOLs tested when well centered. With large aperture, performance of all IOLs significantly decreased. Manufacturer's different approaches for these novel IOLs to increase depth of focus by increasing spherical aberration lead to a different performance in respect to contrast function and sensitivity to misalignment. Our results apply to the distance vision. Near vision performance will be evaluated in a separate investigation.

Comparisons of visual outcomes between bilateral implantation and mix-and-match implantation of three types intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare binocular static visual acuity (SVA), stereopsis, contrast sensitivity (CS) and dynamic visual acuity (DVA) of 5 combinations of bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), trifocal IOLs and extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in age-related cataract patients.

METHODS

Two hundred and ninety-two eyes of 146 patients who underwent cataract surgery in the ophthalmology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were involved. Subgroups included group MM (33patients, bilaterally bifocal IOL, ZMB00), group TT (31patients, bilaterally trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP), group XX (34patients, bilaterally EDOF IOL, ZXR00), group MX (25patients, bifocal IOL, ZMB00 + EDOF IOL, ZXR00) and group TX (23patients, trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP + EDOF IOL, ZXR00). The uncorrected SVAs (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA), uncorrected DVAs (UDDVA, UIDVA and UNDVA), near and distance stereopsis, and CS were assessed 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Subgroups of TT, XX, MX and TX showed better UIVA than MM (bP = 0.039, 0.021, 0.035 and 0.037, respectively). MX showed better UNVA than MM and TX (bP = 0.031 and 0.013, respectively). MX group had the optimal outcomes of both near and distance stereopsis. In the UDDVA, XX group and MX group showed better outcomes than TX group at 24 fps (frames per second) (bP = 0.019 and 0.023, respectively). XX group and MX group showed optimal outcomes at all speeds of UIDVA (P = 0.001, 0.005, 0.003 and 0.005, respectively). As the speed increased, the XX group and the MX group showed better UNDVA than the MM group and the TT group (P = 0.019, 0.002 and 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Mix-and-match implantation of bifocal IOLs and EDOF IOLs provides excellent and stable binocular visual outcomes including SVA, stereopsis and DVA in distant and near distances.

Presbyopia-correcting performance and subjective outcomes of a trifocal intraocular lens in eyes with different axial lengths: A prospective cohort study

Purpose

To compare the presbyopia-correcting performance, visual quality, satisfaction and life quality after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes with different axial lengths (AL).

Methods

This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with implantation of a trifocal IOL. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and distance-corrected visual acuity at different distances, contrast sensitivity, aberrations and IOL decentration were measured 3 months after surgery. Spectacle independence, adverse photic phenomena, overall satisfaction and life quality were assessed with a questionnaire.

Results

This study included 61 eyes of 61 patients: 16 eyes in the short AL group, 28 eyes in the control group and 17 eyes in the long AL group. Postoperatively, the prediction error (PE) of spherical equivalent showed a difference (P = 0.002). The uncorrected near visual acuity in the long AL group was higher (P = 0.047). Although a higher IOL decentration was obtained in the long AL group (P = 0.034), no significant difference was found in contrast sensitivity and aberrations (all P &gt; 0.05). In the questionnaire, patients in the long AL group showed a relatively lower spectacle independence at near distance (P = 0.060) and had difficulties in near activities, mental health and role in daily life (P = 0.003, 0.021, and 0.033). However, no significant difference was observed in overall satisfaction (P = 0.124).

Conclusion

With detailed preoperative evaluation, the trifocal IOL provided satisfactory visual outcomes for patients with different AL. AL had a certain influence on predictability and IOL decentration. And for patients with long AL, the inadaptability to the near focal point might become an important problem.

Evaluating Optical Quality of a New Hydrophilic Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lens and Comparison to the Monofocal Counterpart: An Optical Bench Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to analyze the optical properties of a new hydrophilic enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) using optical bench analysis and compare it with its monofocal counterpart.

METHODS

This laboratory study investigates the enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (L-333) and the monofocal counterpart (L-313) IOL by Teleon Surgical, Spankeren, Netherlands on the optical bench, using OptiSpheric IOL PRO2 (Trioptics, Germany) in order to assess the optical quality according to ISO 11979 with ISO-2 Cornea. IOLs (power 22.0 D) were evaluated regarding through frequency modulation transfer function (MTF), Strehl ratio (SR), and through focus MTF at 50 lp/mm using a 3.0-mm and a 4.5-mm aperture. Tilt and decentration were applied. In addition, wavefront measurements were obtained using WaveMaster® IOL 2 device (Trioptics, Germany) and analyzed.

RESULTS

Centered: The MTF (mean) at 50 lp/mm (L-333/L-313) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.606/0.724 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.330/0.409. The SR (mean) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.586/0.809 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.330/0.348. Decentered by 1 mm: The MTF (mean) at 50 lp/mm (L-333/L-313) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.485/0.705 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.255/0.374. The SR (mean) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.457/0.739 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.185/0.268. Tilted by 5 degrees: The MTF (mean) at 50 lp/mm (L-333/L-313) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.577/0.657 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.345/0.336. The SR (mean) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.583/0.702 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.269/0.237. In through focus MTF and aperture of 3.0 mm, the L-333 showed a peak of 0.41 with some enlarged depth of power of about 2 D. For the aperture of 4.5 mm, the MTF values of L-313 and L-333 were slightly reduced; L-333 showed an MTF peak of 0.23 and some reduced depth of power of about 1.5 D. Wavefront measurements showed no major aberrations for the L-313, while a combination of moderate increase in Z 4-0 and Z 6-0 with opposite sign was revealed for the L-333.

CONCLUSION

The enhanced monofocal Lentis Quantum (L-333) produces some enlarged depth of focus by combining spherical aberration of different order and opposite sign. The Lentis Quantum performs very well in comparison to the aspherical monofocal counterpart owing to its optical design. Results with large apertures were sufficient too, suggesting that  the lens is a good option in eyes with a wide pupil and thus in refractive surgeries of young patients.

Visual performance following implantation of presbyopia correcting intraocular lenses

OBJECTIVE

To compare the visual outcomes following bilateral implantation of 3 presbyopia correcting IOLs.

METHODS

Results are reported for patients who underwent phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of one of the following IOLs: Panoptix IOL, AT LISA tri IOL and Symphony IOL. Six months postoperative examination included monocular UIVA at 80 and 60 cm and monocular UNVA and DCNVA at 40 cm, monocular UDVA and CDVA, Spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, binocular defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, photopic phenomena, and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

UIVA at 80 cm was significantly better in the AT LISA group and the Symfony groups than the Panoptix group, while UIVA at 60 cm was better in the Symfony group and the Panoptix group than the AT LISA group. A worse DCNVA was recorded in the Symfony group. At a defocus of -2.50 D, the near VA was similar in the PanOptix and AT LISA groups (0.05, 0.07 logMAR respectively), which were significantly better than the Symfony group (0.3 LogMAR). Binocular photopic and scotopic contrast sensitivity outcomes were similar among the three groups at all spatial frequencies. In Symphony group, the frequency and the degree of bother of photic phenomena was relatively higher than the other two groups. Higher percentage of patients in symphony group reported their need for reading glasses.

CONCLUSION

PanOptix IOL and AT LISA IOL would be a good choice for patients aiming for an optimum near vision, while Symfony IOL seems suitable for patients having the priority for good intermediate vision.

Self-rated quality of vision and optical phenomena intensity of diffractive presbyopia-correcting IOLs: EDoF, trifocal vs panfocal

PURPOSE

To investigate the self-rated quality of vision (SQV) and optical phenomena intensity of 3 diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (mIOLs).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative case series.

METHODS

Patients who had bilateral implantation of a diffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDoF), trifocal, or panfocal mIOL were assessed. Outcome parameters were SQV, symptom intensity of optical phenomena under 3 lighting conditions, quality of everyday lifestyle activities, spectacle independence (SI), and contrast sensitivity (CS).

RESULTS

The study comprised 108 eyes. The 3 lenses provided good total SQV under all lighting conditions. EDoF patients reported a slightly better total SQV (EDoF: 9.8 ± 6.67, trifocal: 22.2 ± 7.09, panfocal: 19.6 ± 16.25 visual analog scale, P = .041). A similar percentage of patients reported the presence of optical phenomena with no difference between mIOLs ( P > .05). EDoF, trifocal, and panfocal patients rated symptom intensity of optical phenomena mild to moderate under all lighting conditions; however, EDoF patients reported a lower symptom intensity of halos ( P < .05). Reported quality of everyday lifestyle activities and CS were comparable ( P < .05). All panfocal and trifocal patients (100%) achieved complete SI, whereas almost half (44%) of the EDoF patients used reading spectacles.

CONCLUSIONS

Diffractive EDoF, trifocal, and panfocal mIOLs provided good total SQV with mild to moderate intensity of optical phenomena under all lighting conditions. EDoF patients experienced the same percentage of optical phenomena but reported a weaker symptom intensity of halos and better night-driving ability. EDoF patients would all choose the same IOL, although a significant number of them needed reading spectacles, indicating that SI is not the main factor that determines patient selection of IOLs.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes of Mix-and-Match Implantation of an Extended Depth-of-Focus and a Diffractive Bifocal Intraocular Lens

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of the extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (EDOF-IOL) and the diffractive bifocal IOL.

METHODS

Fifty-six eyes of 28 patients underwent cataract surgery with implantation of an EDOF-IOL (TECNIS Symfony, ZXR00) in their dominant eye and a diffractive bifocal IOL (+3.25 D add TECNIS ZLB00) in their nondominant eye. Monocular and binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction score (0-5), and spectacle dependence at near vision were evaluated at 3 months after the surgery.

RESULTS

Postoperative binocular uncorrected distant visual acuity was 0.009±0.031 logMAR, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was 0.090±0.158 logMAR, and uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.099±0.068 logMAR. The monocular defocus curve demonstrated better performance at intermediate distance in eyes with an EDOF-IOL and better performance at near distance in eyes with a diffractive bifocal IOL. An EDOF-IOL exhibited better outcomes in contrast sensitivity compared with a diffractive bifocal IOL. Three patients (10.7%) required glasses for near vision.

CONCLUSION

Mix-and-match implantation of a diffractive bifocal IOL with an EDOF-IOL provides an excellent range of vision, and high levels of contrast sensitivity and patient satisfaction.

Intraoperative OCT vs Scheimpflug and swept-source OCT measurements for anterior eye parameters

PURPOSE

To compare agreement of anterior segment parameter measurements using an intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) of a femtosecond laser (LenSx) during interface docking to the eye with preoperative Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam AXL) and swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) (IOLMaster 700).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

Anterior segment measurements were performed in mydriasis prior to surgery using Scheimpflug tomography and SS-OCT. Postoperatively, iOCT images were analyzed using a modification of the FIJI image-processing program. Outcome measures included external anterior chamber depth (ACD), central corneal thickness (CCT), and central lens thickness (LT).

RESULTS

95 eyes of 66 patients who underwent planned OCT guided femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery were included. The ACD measured with the iOCT was -0.011 ± 0.126 mm smaller (P = .389) than that with the SS-OCT and -0.059 ± 0.185 mm than with the Scheimpflug tomography (P = .003). The SS-OCT measured a -0.047 ± 0.146 mm smaller ACD than the Scheimpflug tomography (P = .002). The measurements of CCT using the iOCT and the Scheimpflug tomography (-0.705 ± 20.837 μm, P = .742) and the LT measurements using SS-OCT and iOCT (-0.050 ± 0.089 mm, P < .001) showed no clinically relevant difference. Only the ACD between the iOCT and the Scheimpflug tomography showed a clinically relevant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison of the anterior segment parameters of iOCT with SS-OCT showed no clinically relevant differences regarding the ACD and the LT. However, Scheimpflug tomography vs iOCT measured a small clinically relevant difference for ACD. The iOCT showed no clinically relevant differences in anterior segment parameters compared with the SS-OCT. A small clinically relevant difference for ACD was found in comparison with that of a Scheimpflug device.

Depth of field and visual performance after implantation of a new hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens

Purpose

To assess the depth of field (DOF) by means of defocus curve analysis applying different visual acuity criteria in patients following cataract surgery and bilateral implantation of a new trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

Fifty eyes of 25 consecutive patients who underwent implantation of the Asqelio™ trifocal IOL (AST Products Inc., USA) were enrolled in this observational prospective study. Monocular subjective DOF was obtained from defocus curves with absolute and relative criteria of tolerance for different visual acuities values. Patient’s visual satisfaction, postoperative refraction and visual acuity at far, intermediate (67 cm) and near (40 cm) distances were also measured at 1 and 3-months post-surgery. Analysis of variance was used to assess differences in refractive error after the surgical procedure, and paired t-tests were used to assess differences in VA. Patient satisfaction results were reported as percentages.

Results

Spherical equivalent was 0.05 ± 0.23 D and residual cylinder 0.01 ± 0.23 D 3-months after the surgery. Absolute DOF obtained was 3.29 ± 0.91 D considering 0.1 LogMAR as cut-off value, and 4.82 ± 0.69 D when 0.3 logMAR as cutoff value. Relative DOF considering a drop of 0.1 logMAR from maximum visual acuity was 2.57 ± 0.82 D, and 1.27 ± 0.70 D when a drop of 0.04 logMAR was considered. Visual acuities obtained 3-months after the surgery were 0.03 ± 0.13, − 0.05 ± 0.06, 0.03 ± 0.08 and 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR for uncorrected and best-corrected for distance, and best distance-corrected for intermediate and near distances, respectively. Average response to visual satisfaction queries was 8.24/10 at distance, 8.04/10 at intermediate, and 7.88/10 at near.

Conclusions

Patients implanted with this trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in visual acuity at different distances providing wide absolute and relative DOF values. The outcomes demonstrate that this lens is predictable yielding good patient satisfaction rates.

Developing dynamic defocus curve for evaluating dynamic vision accommodative function

Background

To assess dynamic visual acuity (DVA) under different defocus statuses and explore the assessment of dynamic vision accommodation.

Methods

Twenty subjects (6 males and 14 females) aged 18 to 35 were recruited. Nonmydriatic subjective refraction (sphere and cylinder) and accommodative tests including negative relative accommodation (NRA), positive relative accommodation (PRA), binocular cross cylinder (BCC) and accommodative facility using a flipper were performed. Binocular static visual acuity (SVA) and DVA at 40 degrees per second (dps) were measured under different defocus statuses (+1.5D to -4D in -0.5D steps) based on the refractive error fully corrected. Static and dynamic defocus curves were plotted. The area under the curve (AUC) and corrected dynamic vision accommodation (CDVAc) were calculated.

Results

The study showed that the dynamic defocus curve fitted the cubic curve properly (p<0.001). DVA was significantly worse than SVA at all defocused statuses (p<0.001), and the difference was more significant at greater defocus diopters. Single factor analysis indicated that CDVAc was significantly correlated with NRA-PRA (p=0.012) and AUC_dynamic (p<0.001). Significant associations were observed between AUC_dynamic and PRA (p=0.013) as well as NRA-PRA (p=0.021). Meanwhile, DVA was positively correlated with PRA at 0D, -1.0D, -1.5D, -2.5D and -3.0D (p<0.05) and with NRA-PRA at 0D, -1.0D, -1.5D, -2.0D and -2.5D (p<0.05). Multiple factor regression analysis indicated that CDVAc (0D ~ -3.5D) and SVA (+1.5D ~ +1.0D & -2.5D ~ -4.0D) were significant influential factors for defocused DVA (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that DVA had a defocus curve similar to that of SVA. CDVAc was feasible for the assessment of dynamic vision accommodative function. The dynamic defocus curve test could efficiently be applied in the evaluation of dynamic visual performance under different defocus statuses.

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

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Defocus curves: Focusing on factors influencing assessment

ABSTRACT

Defocus curve assessment is used to emulate defocus over a range of distances and is a valuable tool that is used to differentiate the performance of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. However, defocus curves are limited by a lack of standardization, and multiple factors can impact their generation and interpretation. This review discusses key factors that influence the assessment of defocus curves, including pupil size, level of contrast, sphere versus cylinder defocus, viewing distance, monocular versus binocular assessment, use of Snellen versus logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution charts, and diopter range and step size. There are also different methods to analyze defocus curves, including the direct comparison method, range-of-focus analysis, and area under the curve analysis, which can impact result interpretation. A good understanding of these factors and standardization of the methodology are important to ensure optimal cross-study comparisons.

Refractive Outcomes after Cataract Surgery

A post-operative manifest refractive error as close as possible to target is key when performing cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, given that residual astigmatism and refractive errors negatively impact patients’ vision and satisfaction. This review explores refractive outcomes prior to modern biometry; advances in biometry and its impact on patients’ vision and refractive outcomes after cataract surgery; key factors that affect prediction accuracy; and residual refractive errors and the impact on visual outcomes. There are numerous pre-, intra-, and post-operative factors that can influence refractive outcomes after cataract surgery, leaving surgeons with a small “error budget” (i.e., the source and sum of all influencing factors). To mitigate these factors, precise measurement and correct application of ocular biometric data are required. With advances in optical biometry, prediction of patient post-operative refractory status has become more accurate, leading to an increased proportion of patients achieving their target refraction. Alongside improvements in biometry, advancements in microsurgical techniques, new IOL technologies, and enhancements to IOL power calculations have also positively impacted patients’ refractory status after cataract surgery.

Comparison of Patient Outcomes following Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The purpose is to compare the outcomes of implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (TIOLs) and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov was conducted in March 2020 to identify relevant studies. A meta-analysis of the results was performed. Patients implanted with EDOF IOLs or TIOLs in previous studies were included. The primary outcomes of the study were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and defocus curve.

Results

TIOLs and EDOF IOLs provided comparable binocular UDVA (MD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.04, 0.03, logMAR). However, EDOF IOLs provided better UIVA (MD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.01, logMAR) and worse UNVA (MD: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.14, logMAR) than TIOLs. Fewer patients achieved spectacle independence after implantation of EDOF IOLs (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.87) than after implantation of TIOLs, especially for near vision (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic or mesopic conditions with both IOLs. Patient satisfaction after implantation of both IOLs was high.

Conclusion

EDOF IOLs and TIOLs provide comparable distance vision. However, EDOF IOLs provide better intermediate vision and worse near vision than TIOLs. The advantages of EDOF IOLs over TIOLs in terms of CS, aberrations, and visual disturbance are not significant. Patients are satisfied with both types of IOLs.

Preliminary Clinical Outcomes of a New Enhanced Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To assess the preliminary clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction of the new enhanced depth of focus (EDOF) LuxSmart™ intraocular lens IOL and to compare with a conventional monofocal IOL (Akreos™) in patients who had undergone bilateral cataract surgery.

Methods

Twelve patients underwent bilateral LuxSmart IOL implantation, and twelve underwent bilateral Akreos IOL implantation. Best-corrected distance (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 66cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40cm and defocus curve were assessed. Patients-reported visual function was inquired by Catquest-9SF. The presence of photic phenomena was evaluated. A p-value lower than 0.05 was considered for statistical significance.

Results

The mean IOL power was +21.90D in LuxSmart group and +22.30D in Akreos. Monocular UDVA (p = 0.32) and CDVA (p = 0.52) did not differ between groups. The average binocular UIVA (0.18 ± 0.12 logMAR vs. 0.30 ± 0.13 logMAR, p < 0.001) and UNVA (0.38 ± 0.14 logMAR vs. 0.44 ± 0.17 logMAR, p = 0.02) were higher in LuxSmart IOL group. No patients reported disabling photic phenomena in either group.

Conclusion

This study shows that new LuxSmart EDOF IOL achieved higher performance for intermediate and near vision compared with a conventional monofocal IOL, without increasing the risk of dysphotopsias. LuxSmart may be an attractive and safe option for patients who desire spectacle independence for distance and intermediate vision after cataract surgery.

[Outcomes of bilateral implantation of trifocal and extended depth of focus IOLs]

In recent years, a new class of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) has become available on the market. There is only a limited number of scientific papers comparing trifocal and EDOF IOL data, and the results are often contradictory.

PURPOSE

Comparative analysis of the results of trifocal and EDOF IOL implantation in patients with presbyopia and/or cataract.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study included 72 patients (144 eyes) after bilateral implantation of either Tecnis Symfony EDOF IOL (18 patients, 36 eyes; group I) or AcrySof PanOptix trifocal IOL (54 patients, 108 eyes; group II). In 18 patients out of 72 (25%) the implantation involved mini-monovision, i.e. the calculation of the IOL power on the nondominant eye was performed at -0.5 D. The average follow-up period for the patients was 7.1±1.2 months.

RESULTS

There was a significant (p<0.05) increase in uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) at the maximum follow-up time compared to the preoperative indices in all groups. Group II was characterized by slightly better UCNVA dynamics (0.85±0.13 versus 0.2±0.04 before surgery, as comparted to 0.78±0.11 versus 0.19±0.06 before surgery in group I), but differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences (p=0.046) were observed when comparing best corrected near vision acuity (BCNVA) in groups I and II (0.79±0.05 and 0.98±0.08, respectively) at 6 months compared to the preoperative period (0.62±0.09 and 0.6±0.11, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Trifocal IOL implantation was associated with acceptable near and far vision correction and a higher frequency of adverse optical phenomena, while implantation of the EDOF IOL was associated with slightly better correction of intermediate vision and a significantly lower incidence of halo and glare. Patients were satisfied with the outcomes of surgery in all cases.

Optical Bench Analysis of 2 Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses

Background

The aim of the study was to analyze the objective optical properties of 2 enhanced depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) using optical bench analysis.

Methods

This experimental study investigates 2 new EDoF IOLs, the Alcon AcrySof IQ Vivity and the Bausch & Lomb LuxSmart Crystal, on the optical bench, using OptiSpheric IOL PRO2 (Trioptics, Germany) in order to assess the optical quality according to ISO 11979 with ISO-2 Cornea. IOLs (power 22.0 D) were evaluated regarding modulation transfer function (MTF) at 50 lp/mm and Strehl ratio (SR) using a 3.0-mm and a 4.5-mm aperture. In addition, wavefront measurements were obtained using WaveMaster® IOL 2 device (Trioptics, Germany), and USAF targets were analyzed.

Results

Centered: the MTF (mean) at 50 lp/mm (AcrySof IQ Vivity/LuxSmart Crystal) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.250/0.257 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.202/0.243. The SR (mean) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.261/0.355 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.176/0.206. Decentered by 1 mm: the MTF (mean) at 50 lp/mm (AcrySof IQ Vivity/LuxSmart Crystal) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.266/0.247 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.126/0.215. The SR (mean) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.272/0.234 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.133/0.183. Tilted by 5 degree: the MTF (mean) at 50 lp/mm (AcrySof IQ Vivity/LuxSmart Crystal) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.221/0.360 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.214/0.229. The SR (mean) with 3.0 mm aperture was 0.232/0.428 and with 4.5 mm aperture 0.225/0.229. The simulated visual function using USAF test targets showed corresponding qualitative results. Wavefront measurements proved a complex optical design. Higher order aberrations in the central part of the optics were modulated up to the 10th order to enhance the range of functional vision to near distance, leaving the peripheral parts of the optics aberration free or as aberration correcting.

Conclusion

The diversity of EDOF IOLs, their optics, and their respective impact on the vision quality must be understood in order to select the appropriate IOL in each individual case. This analysis of new, innovative IOL optics based on increased negative spherical aberration may help the ophthalmic surgeon to select the IOL which meets the individual requirements of the patient for best postoperative outcomes. It seems that there is no perfect IOL that is equally suitable for all patients, but the right choice is an individual, customized approach dealing with patients' expectations.

Cataract: Advances in surgery and whether surgery remains the only treatment in future

Background

Cataract is the world's leading eye disease that causes blindness. The prevalence of cataract aged 40 years and older is approximately 11.8%-18.8%. Currently, surgery is the only way to treat cataracts.

Main Text

From early intracapsular cataract extraction to extracapsular cataract extraction, to current phacoemulsification cataract surgery, the incision ranges from 12 to 3 ​mm, and sometimes to even 1.8 ​mm or less, and the revolution in cataract surgery is ongoing. Cataract surgery has transformed from vision recovery to refractive surgery, leading to the era of refractive cataract surgery, and premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) such as toric IOLs, multifocal IOLs, and extended depth-of-focus IOLs are being increasingly used to meet the individual needs of patients. With its advantages of providing better visual acuity and causing fewer complications, phacoemulsification is currently the mainstream cataract surgery technique worldwide. However, patient expectations for the safety and accuracy of the operation are continually increasing. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) has entered the public's field of vision. FLACS is a combination of new laser technology and artificial intelligence to replace fine manual clear corneal incision, capsulorhexis, and nuclear pre-fragmentation, providing new alternative technologies for patients and ophthalmologists. As FLACS matures, it is being increasingly applied in complex cases; however, some think it is not cost-effective. Although more than 26 million cataract surgeries are performed each year, there is still a gap in the prevalence of cataracts, especially in developing countries. Although cataract surgery is a nearly ideal procedure and complications are manageable, both patients and doctors dream of using drugs to cure cataracts. Is surgery really the only way to treat cataracts in the future? It has been verified by animal experiments that lanosterol therapy in rabbits and dogs could make cataract severity alleviated and lens transparency partially recovered. Although there is still much to learn about cataract reversal, this groundbreaking work provided a new strategy for the prevention and treatment of cataracts.

Conclusions

Although cataract surgery is nearly ideal, it is still insufficient, we expect the prospects for cataract drugs to be bright.

Non-diffractive wavefront shaping extended depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lens: visual performance and patient-reported outcome

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual performance and patient-reported outcomes after bilateral implantation of new non-diffractive wavefront shaping extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-arm, single-center study.

METHODS

Patient population: We included 16 patients (32 eyes) who received bilateral implantation of a non-diffractive wavefront shaping EDOF IOL (AcrySof® IQ Vivity®, Alcon Research, TX, USA). Target refraction in both eyes was emmetropia. Observation procedure: Monocular and binocular uncorrected (UCVA) and distance-corrected (DCVA) visual acuity (VA), refractive outcome, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (CS) were evaluated 3 months after surgery with a questionnaire on optical phenomena and spectacle independence. Main Outcome measure: Three months postoperative monocular and binocular UCVA and DCVA (logMAR); defocus curve; CS; and quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire results.

RESULTS

Mean spherical equivalent was -0.16 ± 0.37 D 3 month postoperatively. Binocular UDVA at distance, intermediate, and near was 0.01 ± 0.05 logMAR at 4m, 0.05 ± 0.05 logMAR at 80cm, 0.07 ± 0.06 logMAR at 66cm, and 0.25 ± 0.11 logMAR at 40cm, respectively. Despite some minor optical phenomena, 88% of patients would choose the same lens. 63% of patients reported no optical phenomena at all. Contrast sensitivity was 1.25 ± 0.41 logCS (photopic), 0.96 ± 0.24 logCS (mesopic) and 0.93 ± 0.24 (mesopic + glare).

CONCLUSIONS

This non-diffractive wavefront shaping EDOF IOL provides good VA at far and intermediate distance and functional near VA. It showed good QoV and CS, and high spectacle independence for distance and intermediate vision with significantly less optical phenomena than with other EDOF or MIOLs.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of 3 trifocal IOLs

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes obtained after implantation of 1 of 3 models of diffractive trifocal IOLs.

SETTING

Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized comparative study.

METHODS

Patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of 1 of 3 models of diffractive trifocal IOLs were enrolled. The IOL models implanted were the FineVision POD F, RayOne Trifocal, or the AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL (30 eyes of 15 patients in each group). Visual acuity (VA), refraction, defocus curve, and contrast sensitivity outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, the Quality of Vision questionnaire (QoV) was used to evaluate the frequency, severity, and discomfort of different visual symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 90 eyes of 45 patients were included. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in distance, intermediate, and near VA (P ≥ .112) and postoperative refraction (P ≥ .059). Postoperative binocular uncorrected intermediate VA of 0.10 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) or better was found in 14 (93.33%) patients in the 3 groups. Postoperative binocular uncorrected near VA of 0.10 logMAR or better was found in 13 (86.67%), 14 (93.33%), and 13 (86.67%) patients in the POD F, RayOne, and PanOptix IOLs groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in scotopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare and in the QoV scores (P ≥ .057), except for the difference between the POD F and RayOne IOLs groups in depth perception severity, which was less in the RayOne IOL group (P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

The 3 trifocal IOLs evaluated provided a complete visual restoration with good visual quality outcomes.

Explantation/exchange of the components of a new fluid-filled, modular, accommodating IOL

PURPOSE

To evaluate the ease of replacement and capsular stability of a new fluid-filled, modular, accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) system composed of a monofocal base lens with a fluid lens clipped inside of it.

SETTING

John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

DESIGN

Experimental study.

METHODS

Five New Zealand rabbits underwent bilateral phacoemulsification with implantation of the test lens (Juvene, LensGen, Inc.) in both eyes (4 rabbits), or a control IOL in 1 eye (AcrySof, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.) and the test IOL in the other (1 rabbit). At 2 weeks, the 4 rabbits with bilateral Juvene IOLs had the clipped-in fluid lens exchanged for a new fluid lens in 1 eye, and the base and fluid lenses exchanged for a control lens in the contralateral eye. Slitlamp examinations were performed weekly for 4 weeks. The globes were enucleated and evaluated with ultrasound biomicroscopy, grossly from the posterior Miyake-Apple view, and histopathologically.

RESULTS

Explantation/exchange of the fluid lens was considered straightforward by the surgeon. Explantation of the base lens (4) was also safely performed, albeit more demanding, without any signs of damage to the capsular bag under clinical, ultrasound biomicroscopy, and pathological examination in the exchanged eyes. Less capsular bag opacification was observed with the Juvene lens system.

CONCLUSIONS

Explantation/exchange of the fluid lens component, or both fluid and base lenses, of this new lens system can be safely accomplished if necessary, because of its modular design and the relative lack of postoperative capsular bag opacification associated with it.

COMPARISON OF REFRACTIVE AND VISUAL OUTCOMES OF THREE PRESBYOPIA-CORRECTING INTRAOCULAR LENSES

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of three different types of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative case series.

METHODS

180 eyes of 90 patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery with implantation of one of these trifocal IOLs were enrolled: Tecnis Synergy (J&J Vision) (Synergy group, 30 patients), Acrysof PanOptix (Alcon) (PanOptix group, 30 patients), and POD F (PhysIOL) (Finevision group, 30 patients). The outcomes in terms of distance, intermediate and near visual acuity (VA), refraction, defocus curve, photic phenomena and spectacle independence were evaluated at 3-months follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between groups in monocular distance-corrected intermediate (Synergy 0.04±0.11, PanOptix 0.05±0.09, Finevision 0.08±0.10; p=0.107) and near VA (0.01±0.08, 0.01±0.06, 0.04±0.10; p=0.186). Likewise, no significant differences among groups were found in binocular uncorrected distance (p=0.572), near (p=0.929) and intermediate VA (p=0.327). In contrast, significant differences between groups were found in the visual acuity for the vergence demands of -0.50, -1.00, -2.00, -3.50 and -4.00 D (p≤0.045). No significant differences among groups were found either in the frequency, severity and bothersomeness of different disturbing visual symptoms, including glare and haloes (p≥0.129). More than 96% of patients in all groups did not require the use of spectacles at any distance after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The three trifocal IOLs evaluated provide an effective visual rehabilitation with minimal incidence of photic phenomena. A trend to obtain a wider range of functional focus was observed with the Tecnis Synergy IOL.

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantation of a presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens that combines EDOF and Multifocal profiles

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical outcomes delivered by a new hybrid presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens: Tecnis Synergy ZFR00V IOL model (Johnson & Johnson Vision) SETTING:: Hospital da Luz Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal DESIGN:: Prospective observational study METHODS:: A total of 27 patients undergoing bilateral IOL implantation were included. Visual acuity (VA) was measured for far distance, intermediate (66 cm) and near (40 cm) vision under both photopic and mesopic conditions. In addition, at the 3-month follow-up visit, the defocus curve was obtained for binocular vision and questionnaires were administered to measure spectacle-independence and level of satisfaction (QoV and Catquest-SF9) with the surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

At 3-month follow-up, under photopic conditions, VA values were: CDVA = -0.02 ± 0.07, DCIVA = 0.03 ± 0.11, and DCNVA = 0.00 ± 0.08, while under mesopic conditions, VA values were: CDVA = -0.01 ± 0.05, and DCNVA = 0.07 ± 0.09. The binocular defocus curve revealed that mean visual acuity was better than 0.30 LogMAR within the +1.00 D to -4.00 D interval, and better than 0.10 LogMAR between +0.50 D and -3.00 D. All patients achieved distance-vision spectacle freedom, while 3.7% of them said they used them in certain intermediate- or near-vision situations. As much as 88% of the patients reported being fairly satisfied or very satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tecnis Synergy ZFR00V intraocular lens model used for cataract surgery is capable of restoring visual function while providing very good intermediate and near vision, under both photopic and mesopic conditions, resulting in a high level of patient satisfaction.