Comparisons of amplitude of pseudoaccommodation with aspheric yellow, spheric yellow, and spheric clear monofocal intraocular lenses

Presbyopia Treatments by Mechanism of Action: A New Classification System Based on a Review of the Literature

Presbyopia, a loss of accommodative ability associated with aging, is a significant cause of vision impairment globally. At the clinical level, it is a frustrating and difficult issue that negatively impacts patients’ quality of life. Less appreciated is the fact that loss of accommodative ability and its current treatments methods may present safety concerns, for example, increasing the risk of falls. Therefore, a more complete understanding of treatment options with respect to how they relate to the natural ability of the eye is needed to improve decision making and to aid clinicians in individualizing treatment options. This article reviews the options for expanding functional through focus—a term coined to describe the ability of the eye to see at all distances with minimal latency—by how they vary the refractive power over time, across the visual field, between eyes, or across a range of distances.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/HZw7qvIu6pw

Effect of the kappa angle on depth of focus after implantation of the TECNIS Symfony intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical effect of TECNIS Symfony intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and identify the effect of kappa angle on the depth of focus (DOF) after implantation.

METHODS

This prospective clinical study included consecutive patients who underwent cataract surgery and TECNIS Symfony IOL implantation at the Daqing Oilfield General Hospital from January 2019 to September 2019. Patients were divided into three groups according to the preoperative kappa angle (r): A (0 < r ≤ 0.2), B (0.2 < r ≤ 0.4), and C (r > 0.4). Uncorrected visual acuity was performed preoperatively and at 7 days, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively. Synthetical optometry, higher-order aberrations, and defocus examinations were performed at 3 months postoperatively. Single-factor analysis of variance and Spearman correlation coefficient were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The uncorrected visual acuity values of the three groups were significantly improved postoperatively, compared with preoperative values (p < 0.001). Three months postoperatively, the best-corrected visual acuity values of the three groups were 0.11 ± 0.02 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), 0.09 ± 0.03 logMAR, and 0.11 ± 0.03 logMAR, respectively. Spherical equivalent (SE) values were 0.37 ± 0.08 D, 0.41 ± 0.06 D, and 0.42 ± 0.06 D, respectively. Best-corrected visual acuity and SE did not significantly differ among the three groups (F = 1.254, p = 0.135; F = 0.849, p = 0.228). There was no significant difference in SE between the three groups (F = 1.658, p = 0.312). Moreover, higher-order aberrations did not significantly differ among the three groups (p > 0.05). The kappa angle was negatively correlated with the postoperative DOF (r = -4.341, p = 0.026). Three months postoperatively, 54.55% of patients exhibited DOF ≥ 3 D, while 92.42% of patients exhibited DOF ≥ 2 D. The ranges of DOF in the three groups were 3.18 ± 0.27 D, 2.83 ± 0.80 D, and 2.57 ± 0.89 D, respectively; the difference among the three groups was statistically significant (F = 5.689, p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Most patients achieved full-range vision after TECNIS Symfony IOL implantation, but the DOF narrowed for those with an excessively large kappa angle, which indicates a need for careful selection.

Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of two intraocular lenses with distinct diffractive optics

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the visual outcomes and subjective visual quality between bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens, J&J Vision Tecnis Symfony^® ZXR00 (Group A) and bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens, Alcon Acrysof IQ PanOptix^® TNFT00 (Group B).

Methods

This prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of consecutive cases assessed 52 eyes of 26 patients operated on by the same surgeon (WTH) and binocularly implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses between May 2016 and July 2018. Binocular visual acuity for far, intermediate and near was tested in all cases. Ophthalmological evaluation included the measurement of binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 70 cm, monocular visual defocus curve and the quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire - 25 ( NEI-VFQ 25).

Results

Postoperative UDVA was 0.00 and 0.09 logMAR (P<0.001), UIVA was 0.20 and 0.39 logMAR (P<0.001) and UNVA was 0.16 and -0.01 logMAR (P<0.001) in groups A and B, respectively; postoperative CDVA was -0.05 and 0.06 logMAR (P<0.001) in groups A and B, respectively.

Conclusion

Both groups reported good subjective quality of vision regarding long, intermediate and short distances. Group A had a better performance for binocular UDVA, UIVA at 70 cm and CDVA, while regarding the monocular defocus curve, Group A outperformed Group B for long distances. Furthermore, Group B surpassed it in the short to very short distances, between the range of ≥2.00 D to 5.00 D of vergence. While Group A had a better performance regarding the vergences between 0.00 and 1.00 D (P<0.05) and at the vergence of +2.50 D (P=0.007). Group B outran Group A for UNVA at 40 cm.

Blue-light filtering intraocular lenses (IOLs) for protecting macular health

BACKGROUND

An intraocular lens (IOL) is a synthetic lens that is surgically implanted within the eye following removal of the crystalline lens, during cataract surgery. While all modern IOLs attenuate the transmission of ultra-violet (UV) light, some IOLs, called blue-blocking or blue-light filtering IOLs, also reduce short-wavelength visible light transmission. The rationale for blue-light filtering IOLs derives primarily from cell culture and animal studies, which suggest that short-wavelength visible light can induce retinal photoxicity. Blue-light filtering IOLs have been suggested to impart retinal protection and potentially prevent the development and progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We sought to investigate the evidence relating to these suggested benefits of blue-light filtering IOLs, and to consider any potential adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of blue-light filtering IOLs compared with non-blue-light filtering IOLs, with respect to providing protection to macular health and function.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 25 October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants undergoing cataract extraction, where a blue-light filtering IOL was compared with an equivalent non-blue-light filtering IOL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The prespecified primary outcome was the change in distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), as a continuous outcome, between baseline and 12 months of follow-up. Prespecified secondary outcomes included postoperative contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, macular pigment optical density (MPOD), proportion of eyes with a pathological finding at the macula (including, but not limited to the development or progression of AMD, or both), daytime alertness, reaction time and patient satisfaction. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects.Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data from eligible RCTs and judged the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We reached a consensus on any disagreements by discussion. Where appropriate, we pooled data relating to outcomes and used random-effects or fixed-effect models for the meta-analyses. We summarised the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 RCTs from 17 different countries, although most studies either did not report relevant outcomes, or provided data in a format that could not be extracted. Together, the included studies considered the outcomes of IOL implantation in over 5000 eyes. The number of participants ranged from 13 to 300, and the follow-up period ranged from one month to five years. Only two of the studies had a trial registry record and no studies referred to a published protocol. We did not judge any of the studies to have a low risk of bias in all seven domains. We judged approximately two-thirds of the studies to have a high risk of bias in domains relating to 'blinding of participants and personnel' (performance bias) and 'blinding of outcome assessment' (detection bias).We found with moderate certainty, that distance BCVA with a blue-light filtering IOL, at six to 18 months postoperatively, and measured in logMAR, was not clearly different to distance BCVA with a non-blue-light filtering IOL (mean difference (MD) -0.01 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.02, P = 0.48; 2 studies, 131 eyes).There was very low-certainty evidence relating to any potential inter-intervention difference for the proportion of eyes that developed late-stage AMD at three years of follow-up, or any stage of AMD at one year of follow-up, as data derived from one trial and two trials respectively, and there were no events in either IOL intervention group, for either outcome. There was very low-certainty evidence for the outcome for the proportion of participants who lost 15 or more letters of distance BCVA at six months of follow-up; two trials that considered a total of 63 eyes reported no events, in either IOL intervention group.There were no relevant, combinable data available for outcomes relating to the effect on contrast sensitivity at six months, the proportion of eyes with a measurable loss of colour discrimination from baseline at six months, or the proportion of participants with adverse events with a probable causal link with the study interventions after six months.We were unable to draw reliable conclusions on the relative equivalence or superiority of blue-light filtering IOLs versus non-blue-light filtering IOLs in relation to longer-term effects on macular health. We were also not able to determine with any certainty whether blue-light filtering IOLs have any significant effects on MPOD, contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, daytime alertness, reaction time or patient satisfaction, relative to non-blue-light filtering IOLs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows with moderate certainty that there is no clinically meaningful difference in short-term BCVA with the two types of IOLs. Further, based upon available data, these findings suggest that there is no clinically meaningful difference in short-term contrast sensitivity with the two interventions, although there was a low level of certainty for this outcome due to a small number of included studies and their inherent risk of bias. Based upon current, best-available research evidence, it is unclear whether blue-light filtering IOLs preserve macular health or alter risks associated with the development and progression of AMD, or both. Further research is required to fully understand the effects of blue-light filtering IOLs for providing protection to macular health and function.

Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the visual outcomes and subjective visual quality between bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens, Alcon Acrysof IQ^® PanOptix^® TNFT00 (group A), and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus lens, J&J Tecnis Symfony^® ZXR00 with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens, J&J Vision Tecnis^® ZMB00 (group B).

Methods

This prospective, nonrandomized, consecutive, comparative study included the assessment of 40 eyes in 20 patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lens. Exclusion criteria were existence of any corneal, retina, or optic nerve disease, previous eye surgery, illiteracy, previous refractive surgery, high axial myopia, expected postoperative corneal astigmatism of >1.00 cylindrical diopter (D), and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Binocular visual acuity was tested in all cases. Ophthalmological evaluation included the measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), with the analysis of contrast sensitivity (CS), and visual defocus curve.

Results

Postoperative UDVA was 0.01 and −0.096 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; postoperative CDVA was −0.07 and −0.16 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; UIVA was 0.14 and 0.20 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; UNVA was −0.03 and 0.11 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively. Under photopic conditions group B had better CS at low frequencies with and without glare.

Conclusion

Both groups promoted good quality of vision for long, intermediate, and short distances. Group B exhibited a better performance for very short distances and for intermediate and long distances ≥−1.50 D of vergence. Group A exhibited a better performance for UIVA at 60 cm and for UNVA at 40 cm.

The clinical depth of field achievable with trifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses: theoretical considerations and proof of concept clinical results

BACKGROUND

To estimate the depth of field (DOF) achievable with multi-and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and compare with actual measurements of DOF in cases implanted with a trifocal IOL and biconvex monofocal IOL METHODS: I) Computer simulations were produced to describe the relationship between DOF, pupil size, preoperative ametropia, and retinal blur tolerance limit for a model eye implanted with either multi- or monofocal IOLs. II) Monocular DOF and pupil size were measured under distance viewing conditions between 3 and 6 months postoperative following uneventful cataract surgery. Cases were implanted with either i) trifocal aspheric IOL (n = 36), or ii) biconvex aspheric monofocal IOL (n = 26). DOF was also measured at 0.33 m in cases implanted with i).

RESULTS

Simulations revealed significant associations between DOF, pupil size, and retinal blur tolerance limit. The mean (±SD) DOF & pupil sizes were at distance for i)  above 2.59D (0.68) & 3.54 mm (0.377), and for ii) above 1.67D (0.51) & 2.90 mm (0.351), and for i) above 3.16D (0.46) at near. The difference between groups were significant for DOF and pupil size at distance (p < 0.001). DOF was significantly greater at near compared with distance in i) above (p < 0.001). For a pupil size of 3 mm, the simulations produce similar DOF values when the tolerance limit of retinal blur is 10 μ.

CONCLUSIONS

The DOF was significantly better after implanting the trifocal IOL compared with the monofocal IOL, and DOF is increased under near viewing conditions. The clinical results are similar to calculated DOF values when the tolerance limit of retinal blur is 10 μ.