Correspondence

Recent studies provide an updated clinical perspective on blue light-filtering IOLs

Background

Recent reviews of blue light-filtering intraocular lenses (IOLs) have stated their potential risks for scotopic vision and circadian photoentrainment. Some authors have challenged the rationale for retinal photoprotection that these IOLs might provide. Our objective is to address these issues by providing an updated clinical perspective based on the results of the most recent studies.

Methods

This article evaluates the currently available published papers assessing the potential risks and benefits of blue light-filtering IOLs. It summarizes the results of seven clinical and two computational studies on photoreception, and several studies related to retinal photoprotection, all of which were not available in the previous reviews. These results provide a clinical risk/benefit analysis for an updated review for these IOLs.

Results

Most clinical studies comparing IOLs with and without the blue light-filtering feature have found no difference in clinical performance for; visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, color vision, or glare. For blue light-filtering IOLs, three comparative clinical studies have shown improved contrast sensitivity and glare reduction; but one study, while it showed satisfactory overall color perception, demonstrated some compromise in mesopic comparative blue color discrimination. Comparative results of two recent clinical studies have also shown improved performance for simulated driving under glare conditions and reduced glare disability, better heterochromatic contrast threshold, and faster recovery from photostress for blue light-filtering IOLs. Two computational and five clinical studies found no difference in performance between IOLs with or without blue light-filtration for scotopic vision performance and photo entrainment of the circadian rhythm. The rationale for protection of the pseudophakic retina against phototoxicity is discussed with supporting results of the most recent computational, in-vitro, animal, clinical, and epidemiological investigations.

Conclusions

This analysis provides an updated clinical perspective which suggests the selection of blue light-filtering IOLs for patients of any age, but especially for pediatric and presbyopic lens exchange patients with a longer pseudophakic life. Without clinically substantiated potential risks, these patients should experience the benefit of overall better quality of vision, reduced glare disability at least in some conditions, and better protection against retinal phototoxicity and its associated potential risk for AMD.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1697-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Blue-blocking IOLs decrease photoreception without providing significant photoprotection

Violet and blue light are responsible for 45% of scotopic, 67% of melanopsin, 83% of human circadian (melatonin suppression) and 94% of S-cone photoreception in pseudophakic eyes (isoilluminance source). Yellow chromophores in blue-blocking intraocular lenses (IOLs) eliminate between 43 and 57% of violet and blue light between 400 and 500 nm, depending on their dioptric power. This restriction adversely affects pseudophakic photopic luminance contrast, photopic S-cone foveal threshold, mesopic contrast acuity, scotopic short-wavelength sensitivity and circadian photoreception. Yellow IOL chromophores provide no tangible clinical benefits in exchange for the photoreception losses they cause. They fail to decrease disability glare or improve contrast sensitivity. Most epidemiological evidence shows that environmental light exposure and cataract surgery are not significant risk factors for the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Thus, the use of blue-blocking IOLs is not evidence-based medicine. Most AMD occurs in phakic adults over 60 years of age, despite crystalline lens photoprotection far greater than that of blue-blocking IOLs. Therefore, if light does play some role in the pathogenesis of AMD, then 1) senescent crystalline lenses do not prevent it, so neither can blue-blocking IOLs that offer far less photoprotection, and 2) all pseudophakes should wear sunglasses in bright environments. Pseudophakes have the freedom to remove their sunglasses for optimal photoreception whenever they choose to do so, provided that they are not encumbered permanently by yellow IOL chromophores. In essence, yellow chromophores are placebos for prevention of AMD that permanently restrict a pseudophake's dim light and circadian photoreception at ages when they are needed most. If yellow IOLs had been the standard of care, then colorless UV-blocking IOLs could be advocated now as "premium" IOLs because they offer dim light and circadian photoreception roughly 15-20 years more youthful than blue-blocking IOLs.