[Use of "mix-and-match" aspheric intraocular lenses in cataract surgery to enhance depth of field and stereoscopic performance]

Clinical performance of presbyopia correction with a multifocal corneoscleral lens

AIM

To assess the clinical performance of a multifocal corneoscleral lens for the presbyopia correction.

METHODS

A prospective clinical trial of the Onefit™ A multifocal corneoscleral lens was conducted with 40 participants with presbyopia. At 4wk of continuous wear of the corneoscleral lens, changes in the distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (VA) were evaluated. The safety of the corneoscleral lens, central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal endothelial cell count, binocular stereopsis, tear film break-up time (BUT), corneal staining, corneal edema, corneal neovascularization (NV), and conjunctival hyperemia were examined. In addition, a subjective questionnaire addressing satisfaction (rated from 1 to 5 points) and discomfort (rated from 1 to 5 points) was administered.

RESULTS

Forty participants were enrolled in this study. Six participants were excluded because of poor compliance with lens fitting (n=2) and loss to follow-up (n=4). The mean age of the participants was 53.0±4.9y. At 4wk of continuous wear of the corneoscleral lens, the best corrected far, intermediate, and near VA was 0.08±0.11, 0.10±0.12, and 0.10±0.12 logMAR, respectively. These results were significant improvements over the baseline uncorrected VA (far: P=0.004; intermediate: P=0.004; near: P=0.002). CCT, corneal endothelial cell count, binocular stereopsis, BUT, corneal staining, corneal edema, corneal NV, and conjunctival hyperemia were not significantly different between baseline and after corneoscleral lens use. The average satisfaction scores for fit sensation; corrected far, intermediate, and near VA; and ease of handling were 4.1, 3.4, 3.6, 3.5, and 3.4, respectively. The average discomfort scores for dryness, irritation, foreign body sensation, redness, fogging, and halo were 1.7, 1.8, 1.5, 1.7, 1.7, and 1.3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Far, intermediate, and near VA are improved in presbyopic patients with the multifocal corneoscleral lens compared to uncorrected baseline VA, without adverse ocular effects. This evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of presbyopia correction with multifocal corneoscleral lenses.

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

Presbyopia is a global problem affecting over a billion people worldwide. The prevalence of unmanaged presbyopia is as high as 50% of those over 50 years of age in developing world populations, due to a lack of awareness and accessibility to affordable treatment, and is even as high as 34% in developed countries. Definitions of presbyopia are inconsistent and varied, so we propose a redefinition that states "presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements". Strategies for correcting presbyopia include separate optical devices located in front of the visual system (reading glasses) or a change in the direction of gaze to view through optical zones of different optical powers (bifocal, trifocal or progressive addition spectacle lenses), monovision (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses, laser refractive surgery and corneal collagen shrinkage), simultaneous images (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses and corneal inlays), pinhole depth of focus expansion (with intraocular lenses, corneal inlays and pharmaceuticals), crystalline lens softening (with lasers or pharmaceuticals) or restored dynamics (with 'accommodating' intraocular lenses, scleral expansion techniques and ciliary muscle electrostimulation); these strategies may be applied differently to the two eyes to optimise the range of clear focus for an individual's task requirements and minimise adverse visual effects. However, none fully overcome presbyopia in all patients. While the restoration of natural accommodation or an equivalent remains elusive, guidance is given on presbyopic correction evaluation techniques.