Mechanism of action of the tetraflex accommodative intraocular lens

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.

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

2022 Glenn A. Fry Award lecture: Enhancing clinical assessment for improved ophthalmic management

ABSTRACT

Detailed clinical assessment is critical to allow sensitive evaluation of the eye and its management. As technology advances, these assessment techniques can be adapted and refined to improve the detection of pathological changes of ocular tissue and their impact on visual function. Enhancements in optical medical devices including spectacle, contact, and intraocular lenses have allowed for a better understanding of the mechanism and amelioration of presbyopia and myopia control. Advancements in imaging technology have enabled improved quantification of the tear film and ocular surface, informing diagnosis and treatment strategies. Miniaturized electronics, large processing power, and in-built sensors in smartphones and tablets capacitate more portable assessment tools for clinicians, facilitate self-monitoring and treatment compliance, and aid communication with patients. This article gives an overview of how technology has been used in many areas of eye care to improve assessments and treatment and provides a snapshot of some of my studies validating and using technology to inform better evidence-based patient management.

Factors Influencing Pseudo-Accommodation-The Difference between Subjectively Reported Range of Clear Focus and Objectively Measured Accommodation Range

The key determinants of the range of clear focus in pre-presbyopes and their relative contributions to the difference between subjective range of focus and objective accommodation assessments have not been previously quantified. Fifty participants (aged 33.0 ± 6.4 years) underwent simultaneous monocular subjective (visual acuity measured with an electronic test-chart) and objective (dynamic accommodation measured with an Aston open-field aberrometer) defocus curve testing for lenses between +2.00 to −10.00 DS in +0.50 DS steps in a randomized order. Pupil diameter and ocular aberrations (converted to visual metrics normalized for pupil size) at each level of blur were measured. The difference between objective range over which the power of the crystalline lens changes and the subjective range of clear focus was quantified and the results modelled using pupil size, refractive error, tolerance to blur, and ocular aberrations. The subjective range of clear focus was principally accounted for by age (46.4%) and pupil size (19.3%). The objectively assessed accommodative range was also principally accounted for by age (27.6%) and pupil size (15.4%). Over one-quarter (26.0%) of the difference between objective accommodation and subjective range of clear focus was accounted for by age (14.0%) and spherical aberration at maximum accommodation (12.0%). There was no significant change in the objective accommodative response (F = 1.426, p = 0.229) or pupil size (F = 0.799, p = 0.554) of participants for levels of defocus above their amplitude of accommodation. Pre-presbyopes benefit from an increased subjective range of clear vision beyond their objective accommodation due in part to neural factors, resulting in a measured depth-of-focus of, on average, 1.0 D.

Advances and challenges of intraocular lens design [Invited]

Phacoemulsification technique with intraocular lens implantation has been a common treatment for cataract patients. With rising demand among the public, new technologies for lens design have emerged to minimize intraocular aberrations, improving visual quality to the largest extent. This paper systematically reviews the development of materials applied in lens manufacturing, the different categories of intraocular lenses, and respective design principles. The advantages and potential drawbacks of intraocular lenses are illustrated in the paper, and prospective research to improve the design are presented in the end.

Clinical application of accommodating intraocular lens

The present review describes recent advances in application of accommodating intraocular lenses (AIOLs). Standard monofocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) only correct distance vision, while AIOLs are designed to allow both good distance vision and near vision, which is achieved through the contraction and relaxation of ciliary muscles by providing transformation of the axial movement or curvature of the lens. Thus, AIOLs may be a better choice for those patients who demand a higher level of visual performance. Since techniques to analyze the performance of AIOLs have not been standardized, and there is a variety of both subjective and objective methods, it is hard to measure the performance of these intraocular lenses. By evaluating advantages and disadvantages of various AIOLs, and introducing techniques for measurement the performance postoperative, this paper can provide some relative information on choosing the type of AIOLs in the clinic.

Correction of presbyopia: An integrated update for the practical surgeon

Presbyopia results from loss or insufficiency of the eye's accommodative ability, and clinically manifests as the inability to focus near objects on the retina. It is one of the most common causes of visual impairment worldwide especially in adults of productive or working age. Various means of compensating for the loss of accommodative ability have been devised from optical tools such as spectacles and contact lenses, to topical medications and to surgical procedures. A comprehensive search on journal articles about topical and surgical correction of presbyopia was undertaken. The various techniques for presbyopia correction, as enumerated in these articles, are discussed in this paper with the addition of our personal experience and perspective on the future of these techniques.

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the anterior segment biometry of the Tetraflex accommodating intraocular lens (AIOL) and the contribution of forward movement to the amplitude of accommodation (AMP).

METHODS

Patients who underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of Tetraflex AIOLs and control nonaccommodating intraocular lenses were imaged by custom-built, long scan depth spectral-domain optical coherence tomography at relaxed and maximal accommodative states. Anterior segment biometry was performed and correlated with the clinical manifestation including AMP.

RESULTS

Patients in the Tetraflex group showed better distance-corrected near visual acuity (logMAR 0.43±0.10 vs. logMAR 0.51±0.10, P<0.05) and greater AMP (1.99±0.58 diopters [D] vs. 1.59±0.45 D, P<0.05) compared with the control group. The measurement of the postoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) during accommodation showed a forward movement of the AIOLs in 16 eyes (69.6%). Compared with the control group, a greater proportion of cases in the Tetraflex group experienced forward movement (χ test, P<0.001). The AMP in the AIOL group negatively correlated with changes in postoperative ACD during accommodation (r=-0.47, P<0.05), whereas AMP in the control group negatively correlated with postoperative pupil diameter (r=-0.57, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Tetraflex AIOLs seemed to have a tendency for forward movement; however, the slight forward axial shifts of the Tetraflex AIOL during natural accommodation may not produce a clinically relevant change in optical power.

Accommodating Intraocular Lenses

With an explosive increase in the worldwide prevalence of presbyopia, development of an accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) with expansive accommodative amplitude remains the holy grail in lens-based refractive surgery. A dynamic change in the dioptric power of the eye can be accomplished by various strategies alone or in combination, including changes in the position, shape, or refractive index of a single- or dual- optic IOL. This article reviews the cumulative advances in these various lens designs, along with clinical outcomes and complications of those that have been implanted. The challenges that remain in each cat-egory are also highlighted.

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.

Visual performance with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses

AIM

To compare the visual functional outcomes with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

Our retrospective comparative study included 51 patients (60 eyes) received implantation of an accommodating IOL (Tetraflex; 16 patients, 20 eyes), a refractive multifocal IOL (ReZoom; 18 patients, 20 eyes), or a diffractive multifocal IOL (ZMA00; 17 patients, 20 eyes). Subjective refraction, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), intraocular aberration, and subjective photic phenomena were detected at 3mo after surgery.

RESULTS

The spherical equivalent in the three groups was -0.38±0.54 D, 0.14±0.56 D, and 0.35±0.41 D, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity among the groups (P=0.39). The ReZoom group had significantly better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than the ZMA00 group (P=0.003). The ZMA00 group had significantly better near visual acuity than the other groups (P<0.05). Better contrast sensitivity values were observed in the Tetraflex group under most of the spatial frequencies conditions (P=0.025). The total aberration was lowest in the ZMA00 group (P=0.000), and the spherical aberration was highest in the Tetraflex group (P=0.000). The three groups had similar frequency of ghosting and glare, and the Tetraflex group had a low rate of halos (P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Both accommodating and multifocal IOLs can successfully restore distance and uncorrected intermediate visual acuities. Tetraflex accommodating IOLs perform better in CS and with less halos of photic phenomena. ReZoom refractive multifocal IOLs have better performance in distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity than ZMA00 diffractive multifocal IOLs, and the latter achieved better near visual acuity and efficiently decreased the optical aberration.

Wavefront Derived Refraction and Full Eye Biometry in Pseudophakic Eyes

Purpose

To assess wavefront derived refraction and full eye biometry including ciliary muscle dimension and full eye axial geometry in pseudophakic eyes using spectral domain OCT equipped with a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor.

Methods

Twenty-eight adult subjects (32 pseudophakic eyes) having recently undergone cataract surgery were enrolled in this study. A custom system combining two optical coherence tomography systems with a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor was constructed to image and monitor changes in whole eye biometry, the ciliary muscle and ocular aberration in the pseudophakic eye. A Badal optical channel and a visual target aligning with the wavefront sensor were incorporated into the system for measuring the wavefront-derived refraction. The imaging acquisition was performed twice. The coefficients of repeatability (CoR) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated.

Results

Images were acquired and processed successfully in all patients. No significant difference was detected between repeated measurements of ciliary muscle dimension, full-eye biometry or defocus aberration. The CoR of full-eye biometry ranged from 0.36% to 3.04% and the ICC ranged from 0.981 to 0.999. The CoR for ciliary muscle dimensions ranged from 12.2% to 41.6% and the ICC ranged from 0.767 to 0.919. The defocus aberrations of the two measurements were 0.443 ± 0.534 D and 0.447 ± 0.586 D and the ICC was 0.951.

Conclusions

The combined system is capable of measuring full eye biometry and refraction with good repeatability. The system is suitable for future investigation of pseudoaccommodation in the pseudophakic eye.

Aberrometry in patients implanted with accommodative intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate the objective accommodative response, change of aberrations, and depth of focus in eyes implanted with the Crystalens accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) at different accommodative demands.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

METHODS

Eleven cataract patients (22 eyes) who underwent implantation of a Crystalens accommodative IOL, and control groups of 9 normal subjects (17 eyes) and 17 pseudophakic patients (17 eyes) implanted with monofocal IOLs were evaluated. A custom-developed laser ray tracing aberrometer was used to measure the optical aberrations. The monochromatic wave aberrations were described using a sixth-order Zernike polynomial expansion. Measurements were obtained under dilated and natural viewing conditions (for accommodative efforts ranging from 0 to 2.5 diopters [D]). The accommodative response was obtained by analyzing changes in paraxial defocus (associated to changes in defocus) and by evaluating the differences in the effective defocus (associated with defocus, spherical aberrations, and pupil diameter) with the accommodative demand. Depth of focus was estimated from through-focus objective optical quality.

RESULTS

Wave aberration measurements were highly reproducible. Vertical trefoil (Z3(-3)) was the predominant higher-order aberration in the Crystalens group and significantly higher (P < .0001) than in the young group, but similar to the monofocal IOL group. The coma root mean square also was higher (P < .005) in the Crystalens group than in the young group. On average, the defocus term (Z2(0)), astigmatism, or higher-order aberrations did not change systematically with accommodative demand in Crystalens eyes. As found for paraxial defocus, the effective defocus in Crystalens eyes did not show significant differences between conditions: 0.34 ± 0.48 D (far), 0.32 ± 0.50 D (intermediate), and 0.34 ± 0.44 D (near). Depth of focus was statistically significantly higher in the Crystalens eyes than in the control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The accommodative response of eyes implanted with the Crystalens accommodative IOLs, measured objectively using laser ray tracing aberrometry, was lower than 0.4 D in all eyes. Several subjects showed changes in astigmatism, spherical aberration, trefoil, and coma with accommodation, which must arise from geometrical and alignment changes in the lens with accommodative demand. Pseudoaccommodation from increased depth of focus may contribute to near vision functionality in Crystalens-implanted patients.

Automatic intraocular lens segmentation and detection in optical coherence tomography images

We present a new algorithm for automatic segmentation and detection of an accommodative intraocular lens implanted in a biomechanical eye model. We extracted lens curvature and position. The algorithm contains denoising and fan correction by a multi-level calibration routine. The segmentation is realized by an adapted canny edge detection algorithm followed by a detection of lens surface with an automatic region of interest search to suppress non-optical surfaces like the lens haptic. The optical distortion of lens back surface is corrected by inverse raytracing. Lens geometry was extracted by a spherical fit. We implemented and demonstrated a powerful algorithm for automatic segmentation, detection and surface analysis of intraocular lenses in vitro. The achieved accuracy is within the expected range determined by previous studies. Future improvements will include the transfer to clinical anterior segment OCT devices.

Biomechanical eye model and measurement setup for investigating accommodating intraocular lenses

We present a biomechanical eye model to induce pseudophakic accommodative movement for evaluation of the focal shift of accommodative intraocular lenses. Therefore, an accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) was implanted into freshly enucleated porcine eyes. The eyes were glued into a mechanical apparatus to expand the ciliar body effectuating mechanical accommodation. An optical coherence tomographer was used to measure positional and geometrical changes of the IOL for different levels of expansion. The expansion unit allowed stretching of the globe of several millimeters. With the biomechanical eye model we were able to simulate the mechanical functionality of accommodation as well as to measure the lens vault and change in geometry. Accommodative vault could only be measured with an intact vitreous, indicating that the vitreous plays an important role for the functionality of accommodative IOLs.

Real and pseudoaccommodation in accommodative lenses

In the attempt to manage presbyopia, different intraocular lens designs have been proposed such as monofocal IOLs with monovision or multifocal IOLs. Even though the lenses mentioned offer satisfactory visual results, contemporary ophthalmology has not completely answered the presbyopic dilemma by simulating the accommodative properties of the crystalline lens itself. Accommodative IOLs were designed to fill this gap and provide satisfactory vision for all distances by restoring some degree of "pseudoaccommodation." Pseudo accommodative capability can be linked to monofocal IOL's as well but the results are not satisfactory enough to fully support unaided near vision. Pseudoaccommodation is a complex phenomenon that can be attributed to several static (i.e., pupil size, against-the-rule cylindrical refractive error, multifocality of the cornea) and dynamic (i.e., anterior movement of the implant itself) factors. Objective measurement of the accommodative capability offered by the accommodative IOLs is extremely difficult to obtain, and different methods such as autorefractometers, retinoscopy, and ultrasound imaging during accommodative effort, ray tracing, or pharmacological stimulation have been developed but the results are sometimes inconsistent. Despite the difficulties in measuring accommodation, accommodative IOLs represent the future in the attempt to successfully "cure" presbyopia.