Refractive Versus Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with contact lenses and spectacles

This paper seeks to outline the history, market situation, clinical management and product performance related to the correction of presbyopia with both contact lenses and spectacles. The history of the development of various optical forms of presbyopic correction are reviewed, and an overview is presented of the current market status of contact lenses and spectacles. Clinical considerations in the fitting and aftercare of presbyopic contact lens and spectacle lens wearers are presented, with general recommendations for best practice. Current options for contact lens correction of presbyopia include soft simultaneous, rigid translating and rigid simultaneous designs, in addition to monovision. Spectacle options include single vision lenses, bifocal lenses and a range of progressive addition lenses. The comparative performance of both contact lens and spectacle lens options is presented. With a significant proportion of the global population now being presbyopic, this overview is particularly timely and is designed to act as a guide for researchers, industry and eyecare practitioners alike.

Geometric-phase intraocular lenses with multifocality

We demonstrate a new type of multifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) embedding μm-thin geometric phase (GP) lens layers. As an emerging approach for lens phase design, the GP modulated IOLs outperform conventional diffractive IOLs in multifocality while completely avoiding the clinically undesirable demand for additional surface patterns to standard monofocal IOL designs. The number of foci and light splitting ratio of the GP IOLs are adjusted by changing the number of stacked GP layers and the thickness of each layer. Bifocal and trifocal GP IOLs are fabricated by radial alignment of anisotropic orientation in UV-curable liquid crystal polymers. After characterizing the defocus image and modulation transfer function of the GP IOLs, it is expected that GP IOLs will alleviate the most common problems associated with multifocal and EDOF IOLs, blurred vision and photic phenomena caused by light scattering and posterior capsule opacification.

Patient-Reported Quality of Life and Satisfaction After Refractive Lens Extraction Using a Diffractive Trifocal IOL: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To assess patient satisfaction and quality of life after refractive lens exchange with a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent refractive lens exchange with the AT LISA tri or AT LISA tri toric IOL (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) at one of five surgical centers were surveyed for their quality of life and satisfaction after surgery using a standardized questionnaire. Patient responses were compared to patient characteristics such as age, sex, axial lengths, and preoperative refraction.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients with 204 treated eyes were included in the analysis. The mean age was 54.6 ± 5.2 years. A total of 172 eyes were hypermetropic, 3 were emmetropic, and 25 were myopic, with a mean preoperative refractive error of 0.93 ± 2.17 diopters. Reported postoperative satisfaction was as follows: 81.4% stated that their expectations were completely met and 17.6% stated that they were partially met. Self-reported refractive error quality of life improved significantly in all queried areas of life. Most frequently reported postoperative limitations were driving at night and driving in bad weather conditions. Halos were reported by 91 (90.1%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction and self-reported quality of life after refractive lens exchange with the AT LISA tri or AT LISA tri toric IOL was high. Glare and halos remain the only significant drawback of the procedure, leading to 40% of patients experiencing difficulties in night driving. Preoperative communication of these drawbacks is obligatory to avoid postoperative disappointment. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(11):768-774.].

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

A Novel Concept of Correcting Presbyopia: First Clinical Results with a Phakic Diffractive Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of a novel technique to correct presbyopia. A phakic IOL (presbyopic IPCL; implantable phakic contact lens) with a diffractive optic is implanted and its impact on visual acuity, refraction, patient satisfaction in patients striving for spectacle-independence is evaluated.

Design

Retrospective noncomparative open-label clinical trial.

Methods

Sixteen eyes of 8 patients (average age 47 years) had a presbyopic IPCL implanted in the posterior chamber. The visual acuity on different distances, refractive status, corneal topography, endothelial cell density, anterior chamber depth, white-to-white, mesopic pupil size and intraocular pressure (IOP) were measured before implantation of this novel phakic IOL with diffractive optic and four weeks after surgery.

Results

At follow-up four weeks after surgery, 9 of the 16 eyes were emmetropic and uncorrected distance visual acuity was at least 0.8. Near vision was excellent in all patients without the need to wear reading glasses. There was neither a significant change in IOP nor a significant surgical impact on endothelial cells. Patient satisfaction was high. There was no major complaint of halos or glare.

Conclusion

The presbyopic IPCL can provide the presbyopic patient with good visual acuity and spectacle-independence for far and near distance. We found this novel technique to have a good safety profile during the surgical procedure and our short follow-up period. Further long-term follow-up is mandatory.

Comparison of three different diffractıve multifocal intraocular lenses with a +2.5, +3.0, and +3.75 diopter additıon power

Purpose

To compare the functional outcomes and astigmatic tolerability after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with a +2.5, +3.0, and +3.75 diopter (D) addition power.

Methods

This study included 122 eyes of 61 patients who had bilateral cataract extraction and implantation of diffractive aspheric multifocal acrylic IOLs with +2.5 D (+2.5 group), +3.0 D (+3.0 group), and +3.75 D (+3.75 group) addition powers. 1-year after surgery, distance corrected near (DNVA) and intermediate (DIVA) visual acuities at 32, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 cm; and contrast sensitivity measurements under photopic, mesopic and mesopic with glare conditions; spherical and astigmatic defocus testing; distance-intermediate-near vision patient satisfaction levels; spectacle dependance; patient-reported outcomes were assessed binocularly.

Results

The +2.50 D group had better DIVA than both +3.0 group and +3.75 groups at 45 cm, 50 cm, 55 cm, and 60 cm (p < 0.05). The +3.75 group had better DNVA than both +2.5 and +3.0 IOL groups at 32 cm (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in mean contrast values at all frequencies between three IOL groups (p > 0.05). The +2.50 D group showed better astigmatic tolerability than +3.00 group (at 2.00 D) and +3.75 group (at 1.50 D, and at 2.00 D) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Multifocal IOLs with +2.5 add power have better intermediate vision, but worse near vision compared to multifocal IOLs with +3.00 D and +3.75 D add power. Multifocal IOLs with +2.50 D add power tend to have better astigmatic defocus tolerability than multifocal IOLs with +3.00 D and +3.75 D add powers.

Identification and Description of Reliable Evidence for 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines for Cataract in the Adult Eye

Importance

Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines require reliable systematic reviews of the evidence to support recommendations. Since 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) has partnered with Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite to update their guidelines, the Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP).

Objective

To describe experiences and findings related to identifying reliable systematic reviews that support topics likely to be addressed in the 2016 update of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines on cataract in the adult eye.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study. Systematic reviews on the management of cataract were searched for in an established database. Each relevant systematic review was mapped to 1 or more of the 24 management categories listed under the Management section of the table of contents of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Data were extracted to determine the reliability of each systematic review using prespecified criteria, and the reliable systematic reviews were examined to find whether they were referenced in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines. For comparison, we assessed whether the reliable systematic reviews published before February 2010 the last search date of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines were referenced in the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines. Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite did not provide systematic reviews to the AAO during the development of the 2011 AAO PPP guidelines.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Systematic review reliability was defined by reporting eligibility criteria, performing a comprehensive literature search, assessing methodologic quality of included studies, using appropriate methods for meta-analysis, and basing conclusions on review findings.

Results

From 99 systematic reviews on management of cataract, 46 (46%) were classified as reliable. No evidence that a comprehensive search had been conducted was the most common reason a review was classified as unreliable. All 46 reliable systematic reviews were cited in the 2016 AAO PPP guidelines, and 8 of 15 available reliable reviews (53%) were cited in the 2011 PPP guidelines.

Conclusions and Relevance

The partnership between Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite and the AAO provides the AAO access to an evidence base of relevant and reliable systematic reviews, thereby supporting robust and efficient clinical practice guidelines development to improve the quality of eye care.

Intraocular lens correction of presbyopia

The continued development of intraocular lens (IOL) technology has led to a dramatic improvement in refractive outcomes. New and innovative ways of achieving the desired postoperative refractive goals continue to be developed. This article aims to review the currently available IOL modalities for correction of presbyopia at the time of cataract surgery, including reference to high-quality comparative studies, where available, and discussion of strengths as well as limitations of the currently available IOL technologies. It has been shown that multifocal compared to monofocal IOL was associated with higher rates of spectacle independence, but higher rates and severity of symptomatic glare as well as reduced contrast sensitivity. Within multifocal IOLs, diffractive compared to refractive IOLs tended to have better near vision and a lower rate of symptomatic glare. Extended depth-of-focus IOLs compared to diffractive multifocal IOL demonstrated equal or superior intermediate visual acuity, with less than or equal rates of glare. Accommodative IOLs represent a broad range of technologies that continue to develop, and new technologies offering opportunities for postoperative adjustment of refractive outcome are emerging.

Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs).

Methods

Three hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in uncorrected and distance-corrected logMAR distance, intermediate and near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), presence of dysphotopsia, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were analyzed.

Results

Postoperative VA in the hybrid (OptiVis) group was improved in all distances (p < 0.001). OptiVis acted superiorly to monofocal IOLs in UNVA and DCNVA (p < 0.001 for both) and to refractive ones in DCNVA (p < 0.005). Distance, mesopic, without glare CS in OptiVis was lower than in the monofocal group and similar to other MFIOLs. No differences in dysphotopsia pre- and postoperatively and spectacle independence in near for OptiVis and refractive MFIOLs were detected. OptiVis patients were more satisfied than those with monofocal IOLs (p=0.015).

Conclusions

After cataract surgery, patients with OptiVis improved VA in all distances. Near and intermediate VA was better than monofocal, and DCNVA was better than the refractive group. CS was lower in OptiVis than in the monofocal group, but there was no difference between MFIOLs. Patient satisfaction was higher in OptiVis than in the monofocal group. This trial is registered with NCT03512626.

Optimizing outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses

Modern day cataract surgery is evolving from a visual restorative to a refractive procedure. The advent of multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs) allows greater spectacle independence and increased quality of life postoperatively. Since the inception in 1980s, MFIOLs have undergone various technical advancements including trifocal and extended depth of vision implants more recently. A thorough preoperative workup including the patients' visual needs and inherent ocular anatomy allows us to achieve superior outcomes. This review offers a comprehensive overview of the various types of MFIOLs and principles of optimizing outcomes through a comprehensive preoperative screening and management of postoperative complications.

Development of a Reading Accessibility Index Using the MNREAD Acuity Chart

IMPORTANCE

We define a Reading Accessibility Index for evaluating reading in individuals with normal and low vision.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the Reading Accessibility Index with data from the Impact of Cataracts on Mobility (ICOM) study.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This investigation was a secondary data analysis from the ICOM study performed between July 1, 2014, and September 20, 2015, at 12 eye clinics in Alabama from October 1, 1994, through March 31, 1996. Participants were 321 adults with cataract (n = 92), pseudophakia (n = 131), or natural crystalline lenses without cataract (n = 98).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The Reading Accessibility Index (hereafter referred to using the abbreviation ACC for the first 3 letters of Accessibility) is defined as an individual's mean reading speed measured across the 10 largest print sizes on the MNREAD Acuity Chart (Precision Vision) (0.4-1.3 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution at 40 cm), normalized by 200 words per minute, which was the mean value for a group of 365 normally sighted young adults. The ACC is a single-value measure that captures an individual's range of accessible print sizes and reading fluency within this range.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 321 participants. Their age range was 55 to 85 years, and 157 (48.9%) were female. The ACCs for the ICOM study participants ranged from 0.19 to 1.33, where 1.00 is the mean value for normally sighted young adults. The ACC for the cataract group (mean [SD], 0.65 [0.18]) was significantly lower than that for the pseudophakia group (mean [SD], 0.77 [0.16]) and the control group (mean [SD], 0.76 [0.19]) (P < .001 for both). The correlation between the ACC and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity (r = -0.22) and Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity (r = 0.20) was weaker than that with a reading-related measure of instrumental activities of daily living (r = -0.60) (P < .001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The ACC represents an individual's access to text across the range of print sizes found in everyday life. Its calculation does not rely on curve fitting and provides a direct comparison with the performance of normally sighted individuals. Changes in an individual's ACC might be used to evaluate the effect of ophthalmic treatment, rehabilitation programs, or assistive technology on reading accessibility. Data from the ICOM study show that the ACC reflects characteristics of reading performance in everyday life and is sensitive to improved reading accessibility for pseudophakic eyes.