Laser corneal enhancement after trifocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes that had previously undergone photoablative corneal refractive surgery

Cataract surgery following refractive surgery: Principles to achieve optical success and patient satisfaction

A growing number of patients with prior refractive surgery are now presenting for cataract surgery. Surgeons face a number of unique challenges in this patient population that tends to be highly motivated to retain or regain functional uncorrected acuity postoperatively. Primary challenges include recognition of the specific type of prior surgery, use of appropriate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, matching IOL style with spherical aberration profile, the recognition of corneal imaging patterns that are and are not compatible with toric and/or presbyopia-correcting lens implantation, and surgical technique modifications, which are particularly relevant in eyes with prior radial keratotomy or phakic IOL implantation. Despite advancements in IOL power formulae, corneal imaging, and IOL options that have improved our ability to achieve targeted postoperative refractive outcomes, accuracy and predictability remain inferior to eyes that undergo cataract surgery without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Thus, preoperative evaluation of patients who will and will not be candidates for postoperative refractive surgical enhancements is also paramount. We provide an overview of the specific challenges in this population and offer evidence-based strategies and considerations for optimizing surgical outcomes.

Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of two models of trifocal intraocular lenses in eyes with previous corneal ablation to treat hyperopia

BACKGROUND

To assess whether a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with neutral spherical aberration (SA) provides better visual and refractive outcomes than a trifocal IOL with negative SA after hyperopic corneal laser ablation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified according to the IOL implanted after cataract or clear lens phacoemulsification [group 1, PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (negative SA); group 2, Rayner RayOne Trifocal (neutral SA)]. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

198 eyes of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 120 eyes and group 2 comprised 78 eyes. At completion, the refractive and predictability results were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 for manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) (P < 0.001). Differences were not significant for UDVA (P = 0.647), CDVA (P = 0.343), UIVA (P = 0.059), UNVA (P = 0.382), binocular UIVA (P = 0.157), or binocular UNVA (P = 0.527). Safety and efficacy indices in refractive lens exchange (RLE) eyes were 0.96 and 0.91, and 0.89 and 0.93 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.254 and 0.168). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (P > 0.05, all items).

CONCLUSION

In eyes previously treated with hyperopic corneal ablation, implantation of a trifocal IOL with neutral SA provided better efficacy and safety outcomes but worse predictability outcomes than those obtained with a trifocal model with negative SA.

Supplemental Toric Intraocular Lenses in the Ciliary Sulcus for Correction of Residual Refractive Astigmatism: A Review

PURPOSE

This study conducted a critical review of the peer-reviewed literature on the use of supplemental toric intraocular lenses (STIOL) in the ciliary sulcus to correct residual refractive astigmatism.

METHODS

This review used PubMed as a database from 1 January 2010 to 13 March 2023. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined, 14 articles were selected for the current review.

RESULTS

The data of 155 eyes were analyzed. Most of the studies reviewed had a short follow-up and poor or limited design, including case reports, case series, and retrospective cohorts. The follow-up period ranged from 43 days to 4.5 years. STIOL rotation was the most frequently described complication in the literature, with a mean rotation of 30.48 ± 19.90°. These patients required repositioning in 50 of 155 eyes (32.25%). Moreover, four eyes (2.58%) required scleral fixation sutures and two eyes (1.29%) iris fixation. Other complications were high intraocular pressure (3 eyes, 1.93%), transient corneal edema (2 eyes, 1.29%), corneal decompensation (2 eyes, 1.29%), and pigment dispersion (1 eye, 0.64%). From the total, 57.41% of eyes (89 eyes from 155) achieved within ± 0.50D of target refractive astigmatism. It is important to highlight that at least 52 eyes out of the 155 (33.54%) had an abnormal cornea with irregular astigmatism.

CONCLUSION

STIOL seem to offer good visual and refractive outcomes. However, STIOL showed variable rotational stability, especially in some platforms. Further studies with a more robust design, methodology, and standardized analysis methods are needed to confirm these trends.