Patient-Reported Outcomes/Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence with Blended or Bilateral Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery

Combination of a monofocal and one type of extended depth-of-focus (zonal refractive) intraocular lens (COMEDI) in bilateral cataract surgery protocol: a monocentric, randomised, parallel group trial in cataract surgery

INTRODUCTION

Modern intraocular lens (IOL) designs for cataract treatment can be broadly classified into three focal range categories; monofocal, extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and multifocal IOLs.Monofocal IOLs allow spectacle independence for one focus, typically distance. In contrast, EDOF IOLs provide a greater range of vision, extending spectacle independence to intermediate distance, while multifocal IOLs enable spectacle independence at all distances with the drawback of positive dysphotopsias and reduced contrast perception.EDOF lenses are an attractive compromise with fewer dysphotopic side effects than multifocals. The purpose of this study is to assess whether implanting an EDOF IOL in the second eye of a patient who received a monofocal IOL in the first eye can improve spectacle independence while maintaining the same optical quality as bilateral monofocal IOL implantation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study compares combined monofocal and EDOF IOL implantation versus bilateral monofocal IOL implantation in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in a monocentric, randomised, patient-masked and assessor-masked, parallel group trial in 88 bilateral cataract patients. The primary outcome measure is binocular photopic distance corrected intermediate visual acuity. The secondary outcome measures include (un)corrected distance and near visual acuity, reading speed at intermediate distance, quality of visual function assessments, patient-reported spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity, aberrometry, stereopsis and straylight measurement at the 3-month follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospital of Brussels (BUN 23219_EDOF).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06002399.

BCLA CLEAR presbyopia: Management with intraocular lenses

Cataract surgery including intraocular lens (IOL) insertion, has been refined extensively since the first such procedure by Sir Harold Ridley in 1949. The intentional creation of monovision with IOLs using monofocal IOL designs has been reported since 1984. The first reported implantation of multifocal IOLs was published in 1987. Since then, various refractive and or diffractive multifocal IOLs have been commercialised. Most are concentric, but segmented IOLs are also available. The most popular are trifocal designs (overlaying two diffractive patterns to achieve additional focal planes at intermediate and near distances) and extended depth of focus designs which leave the patient largely spectacle independent with the reduced risk of bothersome contrast reduction and glare. As well as mini-monovision, surgical strategies to minimise the impact of presbyopia with IOLs includes mixing and matching lenses between the eyes and using IOLs whose power can be adjusted post-implantation. Various IOL designs to mimic the accommodative process have been tried including hinge optics, dual optics, lateral shifts lenses with cubic-type surfaces, lens refilling and curvature changing approaches, but issues in maintaining the active mechanism with post-surgical fibrosis, without causing ocular inflammation, remain a challenge. With careful patient selection, satisfaction rates with IOLs to manage presbyopia are high and anatomical or physiological complications rates are no higher than with monofocal IOLs.

Comparison of the accuracy of three intraocular lens power calculation formulas in cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of three intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in Chinese cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy (RK).

METHODS

Medical records of cataract patients with prior RK at Beijing Tongren Hospital were retrospectively analysed. The absolute error (AE) was calculated as the absolute difference between the actual postoperative spherical equivalent and the predicted spherical equivalent. The AE and percentages of eyes with AE within 0.5D, 1.0D, and 2.0D for three formulas [Barrett True-K, Holladay 1 (D-K), Haigis] were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

Forty-seven eyes of 28 cataract patients were included. The Median AE (MedAE) was significantly different among the three formulas (P < 0.001). The MedAE was lowest for the Barrett True-K formula (0.62), followed by the Haigis (0.76), and Holladay 1 (D-K) (1.16). The percentages of eyes with AE within 0.5D, and 1.0D were significantly different among the 3 formulas (P = 0.009, and P < 0.001). The Barrett True-K formula achieved the highest percentages (46.8%) of eyes with AE within 0.5D. Haigis achieved the highest percentages (70.21%) of eyes with AE within 1.0 D.

CONCLUSIONS

Barrett True-K is the most accurate IOL power calculation formula among the 3 formulas and Haigis is an alternative choice. Considering the relatively lower accuracy of IOL formulas in cataract patients with prior RK, newer and more accurate IOL formulas are desirable.

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.

Clinical Outcome of Lentis Comfort Intraocular Lens Implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual outcome and patient satisfaction following Lentis Comfort intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

METHOD

This retrospective case series examined 68 eyes of 41 patients (mean age 72.0 ± 8.1 years) who underwent Lentis Comfort (LS-313 MF15, Oculentis GmbH, Berlin, Germany; Santen, Osaka, Japan) implantations. Patients were evaluated for visual acuity (VA) at several distances (0.3, 0.5 and 5 meters), refractive error, defocus curve and contrast sensitivity, in addition to answering a questionnaire on photic phenomena, visual discomfort and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Uncorrected visual acuity was 0.05 ± 0.13 (logMAR) for distance, 0.23 ± 0.17 (logMAR) for intermediate, and 0.52 ± 0.20 (logMAR) for near. Defocus curve showed the binocular visual acuity attained was almost 20/20 within the range of +0.5 D to -1.5 D. Contrast sensitivity was within the normal range. The Lentis Comfort IOL tolerated astigmatism to some extent. Patient age could potentially be related to uncorrected visual acuity. Questionnaire results showed almost all patients were satisfied with Lentis Comfort IOL implantation.

CONCLUSION

Lentis Comfort IOLs provided better visual function at far and intermediate distances.

Impact of Lens Material on Objective Refraction in Eyes with Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses

Purpose: Compare subjective (Rx) and objective (ObjRx) refractions outcomes with two autorefractors models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a hydrophobic trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F GF, Physiol, Liége, Belgium) and a hydrophilic one (FineVision POD F, Physiol, Liége, Belgium).Methods: Prospective comparative cohort study, with 100 subjects randomly assigned to either the POD F group (n = 50) or the POD F-GF group (n = 50). Postoperative eye examinations at 1-month visit included seven result sets, one for each assessment method: Rx, AR (automated refraction measured with the autorefractor KR8800), WF-P (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, photopic pupil size), WF-M (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, mesopic pupil size), WF-4 (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, 4 mm pupil), OPD-C (automated refraction measured with the aberrometer OPD in the central pupil/photopic conditions), and OPD-M (automated refraction measured with the aberrometer OPD under mesopic conditions).Results: Mean differences between ObjRx and Rx reached statistical significance for sphere and spherical equivalent (M) only with OPD-C in the POD F-GF group. All ObjRx methods showed significant differences with Rx in the POD F group, with some values differing by more than 0.50 D (-0.58 D in M for the WF-P). Bland Altman plots showed better agreement for the astigmatic components, and for sphere and spherical equivalents in both IOL groups measured with AR and OPD-M.Conclusions: None of the objective methods of refraction evaluated in this study were as reliable as the subjective refraction, irrespective of the lens material, but POD F-GF ObjRx seems to differ less with Rx than POD F ObjRx values.

The PanOptix Trifocal IOL vs the ReSTOR 2.5 Active Focus and ReSTOR 3.0-Add Multifocal Lenses: A Study of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Uncorrected Visual Performance

Purpose

To compare spectacle independence, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and dysphotopsia after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with the AcrySof PanOptix trifocal or the ReSTOR +2.5/3.0 D or ReSTOR +2.5 D mini-monovision multifocal IOL.

Patients and Methods

Prospective, open-label, multicenter analysis of PROs, spectacle independence, and satisfaction among patients undergoing cataract surgery who had been implanted at least 1 month previously with AcrySof IQ PanOptix or PanOptix Toric trifocal (n = 59) IOLs bilaterally. Results were compared to outcomes from a similar study with the AcrySof ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 or the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 mini-monovision lens [n = 191]).

Results

Spectacle independence was significantly higher in the PanOptix cohort, with 83% of patients “never” needing glasses for any activity versus 36% in the ReSTOR 2.5 mini-monovision and 34% in the ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 cohorts. No significant differences in patient satisfaction rates were reported between the three cohorts. Glare and halo were rated “extremely” noticeable more with the PanOptix (10%) than with the ReSTOR 2.5 mini-monovision (1%) or ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 (3%). BCVA differences were not statistically significant, and no new safety concerns were reported.

Conclusion

The AcrySof PanOptix trifocal provides significantly greater spectacle independence across all measured activities than the AcrySof ReSTOR multifocal IOLs.

User Friendliness of a Wearable Visual Behavior Monitor for Cataract and Refractive Surgery

A prospective feasibility study was conducted to determine whether a new wearable device, the Visual Behavior Monitor (VBM), was easy to use and did not present any difficulties with the daily activities of patients. Patients for cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange were randomly selected and screened for inclusion in the study. A total of 129 patients were included in the study as part of a multicenter study. All measurements were performed before surgery. Upon inclusion, patients were trained to wear the device, instructed to wear it for a minimum of 36 h, and were scheduled to return in one week. The VBM measures the distance at which patients’ visual activities are performed, the level of illumination, and head translational and rotational movements along the three axes. On the follow-up visit, patients completed a questionnaire about their experience in wearing the device. All patients underwent standard diagnostic testing, with their cataract grade determined by the Lens Opacities Classification System (LOCS) classification. Results indicate that 87% of patients felt comfortable using the wearable device while 8% of patients responded as not feeling comfortable (5% of patients did not respond to the question). In addition, 91% of patients found it easy to attach the wearable to the magnetic clip while 4% of patients did not find it easy, and 5% of patients did not respond. Overall, patients found the device easy to use, with most reporting that the device was not intrusive.