Anterior Segment Biometry of the Accommodating Intraocular Lens and its Relationship With the Amplitude of Accommodation

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.

Precise delineation and tumor localization based on novel image registration strategy between optical coherence tomography and computed tomography in the radiotherapy of intraocular cancer

Radiation-associated toxicities due to sophisticated ocular anatomy and shape variability of organs at risk (OARs) are major concerns during external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of patients with intraocular cancer. A novel two-step image registration strategy between optical coherence tomography (OCT) and computed tomography (CT) images was proposed and validated to precisely localize the target in the EBRT of patients with intraocular cancer. Specifically, multiple features from OCT and CT images were extracted automatically, then spatial transformation based on thin-plate spline function was performed iteratively to achieve feature alignment between the CT and OCT images. Finally, an exclusive OR (XOR) algorithm was applied for precise 3D registration using a 3D-mesh model generated from OCT and CT volumes. The accuracy of the proposed novel registration strategy was validated and tested in a schematic-eye phantom with an artificially introduced tumor and in ten patients with confirmed primary and/or secondary intraocular cancer. There was an average registration error and computational time of 0.21  ±  0.05° and 259  ±  5 s, together with an average Dice similarity coefficient and Hausdorff distance of 88.4  ±  0.65 and 0.89  ±  0.09, respectively. The preliminary experimental results demonstrated that the proposed novel strategy to overcome current limitations on eye modeling and to localize precisely the tumor target during EBRT of intraocular cancer is promising.

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.

Accommodative intraocular lenses: where are we and where we are going

Presbyopia still remains the last frontier of refractive surgery. Its surgical management is under constant evolution due to the limitations that exist today with respect to its management, which is probably in relation with the multifactorial basis in which presbyopia is clinically developed in the human. Until currently, virtually all surgical techniques that have been proposed for its correction are based on the induction of pseudoaccommodation in the presbyopic eye, including multifocality. However, the real restoration of accommodation is more complex, and it has been tried by the use of different, so called, “accommodative” pseudophakic intraocular lenses (AIOL). Overall, the reported results with these lenses by independent authors have been modest in relation with the restoration of the accommodative power of the eye and these modest benefits are usually lost with time due to the long term changes in the capsular bag. This fact made these lenses to be almost abandoned in the last few years, but there are currently other AIOL models being used with innovative mechanisms of action and different anatomical support outside the capsular bag that offer encouraging preliminary results that could bring a new potential of application to these types of lenses.

In this article, we will update the modern refractive surgeon about the fundamentals and provide updated information about the outcomes of AIOLs by reviewing the concept of accommodation, the different attempts that have been accomplished in the past, their demonstrated published results in human clinical trials, and the future alternatives that may arrive in the near future.