Contrast sensitivity and color perception with orange and yellow intraocular lenses

The Effects of a Blue-Light Filtering Versus Clear Intraocular Implant on Color Appearance

Purpose

More than a dozen studies have investigated whether blue-light filtering (BLF) intraocular lens (IOL) implants influence color vision, generally finding they do not. These studies have not tested color vision per se; rather, they have measured color vision deficiencies or chromatic discrimination. Here, we used additive trichromatic colorimetry to assess color appearance in participants with BLF and clear IOL.

Methods

Seventy-six participants were recruited from two populations: older participants (n = 52) with BLF and clear IOL (n = 98 eyes; M = 67.33 ± 7.48 years; 58.8% female; 25.5% non-White), and young adult control participants (n = 24; M = 21.0 ± 5.13 years; 70.8% female; 41.5% non-White). Participants used a custom-built tricolorimeter to mix three primaries until a perceived perfect neutral white was achieved. Color appearance, expressed as chromaticity coordinates, was measured with a spectral radiometer (ILS950).

Results

Between subjects, the BLF IOL chromaticity coordinates (x = 0.34, y = 0.35, u′ = 0.21, v′ = 0.48) were not significantly different from the clear IOL (x = 0.34, y = 0.33, u′ = 0.22, v′ = 0.48). BLF and clear IOL were also not different within-contralateral subjects (n = 21; BLF x = 0.34, y = 0.33, u′ = 0.22, v′ = 0.47; clear x = 0.34, y = 0.33, u′ = 0.21, v′ = 0.48). Both IOL groups differed from young adults (v′[0.45; P = 0.001], x[0.31; P = 0.008], and y[ 0.30, P < 0.000], but not u′[0.21]).

Conclusions

One advantage of geometric representation of color space is the ability to specify the appearance (rather than spectral composition) of any light mixture by specific coordinates. Using this system, only minor differences in color appearance were found between a BLF, clear IOL, and young natural lens.

Translational Relevance

When color perception is directly measured, the BLF and clear IOL are not meaningfully different.

The effect of blue light filtering lenses on speed perception

Blue-light filtering lenses (BFLs) are marketed to protect the eyes from blue light that may be hazardous to the visual system. Because BFLs attenuate light, they reduce object contrast, which may impact visual behaviours such as the perception of object speed which reduces with contrast. In the present study, we investigated whether speed perception is affected by BFLs. Using a two-interval forced-choice procedure in conjunction with Method of Constant Stimuli, participants (n = 20) judged whether the perceived speed of a moving test stimulus (1.5-4.5°/s) viewed through a BFL was faster than a reference stimulus (2.75°/s) viewed through a clear lens. This procedure was repeated for 3 different BFL brands and chromatic and achromatic stimuli. Psychometric function fits provided an estimate of the speed at which both test and reference stimuli were matched. We find that the perceived speed of both chromatic and achromatic test stimuli was reduced by 6 to 20% when viewed through BFLs, and lenses that attenuated the most blue-light produced the largest reductions in perceived speed. Our findings indicate that BFLs whilst may reduce exposure to hazardous blue light, have unintended consequences to important visual behaviours such as motion perception.

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.

Intraocular lens power adjustment by a femtosecond laser: In vitro evaluation of power change, modulation transfer function, light transmission, and light scattering in a blue light-filtering lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate intraocular lens (IOL) power, modulation transfer function (MTF), light transmission, and light scattering of a blue light-filtering IOL before and after power adjustment by a femtosecond laser obtained through increased hydrophilicity of targeted areas within the optic, creating the ability to build a refractive-index-shaping lens within an existing IOL.

SETTING

John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

DESIGN

Experimental study.

METHODS

Ten CT Lucia 601PY single-piece yellow hydrophobic acrylic IOLs were used in this study. The IOL power and MTF were measured with a power and modulation transfer function device. Light transmission was measured using a Lambda 35 UV-VIS spectrophotometer. Backlight scattering was assessed with a Scheimpflug camera within the IOL substance. All measurements were done with hydrated IOLs. The IOLs were also evaluated under light microscopy (LM) before and after laser adjustment.

RESULTS

After laser adjustment, a mean power change of -2.037 diopters was associated with a MTF change of -0.064 and a light transmittance change of -1.4%. Backlight scattering increased within the IOL optic in the zone corresponding to the laser treatment at levels that are not expected to be clinically significant. Treated areas within the optic could be well appreciated under LM without damage to the IOLs.

CONCLUSION

Power adjustment of a commercially available hydrophobic acrylic blue light-filtering IOL by a femtosecond laser produced an accurate change in dioptric power while not significantly affecting the quality of the IOL.

Influence of intraocular lens subsurface nanoglistenings on functional visual acuity

To investigate the influence of intraocular lens subsurface nanoglistenings (SSNGs) on functional visual acuity (FVA), thirty-nine eyes of 29 patients were examined in this study. The SSNG group comprised 19 eyes of 14 patients (75.7± 5.4 years, mean ± standard deviation), and the control group comprised 20 eyes of 15 patients (73.6 ± 6.5 years). The SSNGs were diagnosed on the basis of the typical whitish IOL appearance upon slit-lamp examination and results of densitometry regarding surface light scattering using Scheimpflug images. The FVA measurement system (AS-28; Kowa, Aichi, Japan) was used to examine changes in continuous visual acuity (VA) over time, and visual function parameters such as FVA, visual maintenance ratio (VMR), maximum VA, minimum VA, standard deviation of VA, and number of blinks were assessed. The results were compared between the SSNG and control groups, and correlations of FVA parameters with the intensity of surface light scattering, time after surgery, and age were also evaluated. There were significant differences in VMR (P = 0.035) and standard deviation of VAs (P = 0.031) between the two groups, although no significant differences were found in baseline VA, FVA, maximum VA, minimum VA, and number of blinks. None of the FVA parameters showed any significant correlations with the intensity of surface light scattering, time after surgery, or age. There is a possibility that VA is unstable during a continuous gazing task in patients with SSNGs.

Effect on contrast sensitivity after clear, yellow and orange intraocular lens implantation

The objective of this study is to evaluate contrast sensitivity function (CSF) after clear, yellow- and orange-tinted intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. This was a prospective randomized study of 98 patients with senile cataract for a period of 6 months from day 1 of August 2014 to day 31 of January 2015. After phacoemulsification, 33 patients were implanted with clear IOLs (AcrySof UV-filtering IOL, SA60AT), 32 patients were implanted with yellow coloured IOLs (AcrySof Natural blue-light-attenuating and UV-filtering IOL, SN60AT with IMPRUV(®) filter) and 33 patients were implanted with orange-tinted blue-filtering IOLs (PC440Y Optech). After 1 month, monocular CSF was done under photopic (85 cd/m(2)) and mesopic (3 cd/m(2)) illumination condition with CSV-1000 test. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after 1 month was 0.021 ± 0.058 logMAR for clear lens, 0.022 ± 0.059 logMAR for yellow lens and 0.019 ± 0.065 logMAR for orange lens (p = 0.989). Uniocular average photopic contrast sensitivity was 1.36 ± 0.19, 1.43 ± 0.18 and 1.46 ± 0.15 log units for clear lens, yellow lens and orange lens, respectively (statistically not significant; p = 0.076). Average mesopic contrast sensitivity was 1.02 ± 0.21 log units for clear lens, 1.00 ± 0.17 log units for yellow lens and 0.99 ± 0.15 log units for orange lens (statistically not significant; p = 0.771). Yellow or orange coloured blue-filtering IOLs are comparable to clear IOLs in terms of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity.

Index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) in pseudophakic eyes with different intraocular lens designs

PURPOSE

To evaluate the index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) in eyes after cataract surgery with various intraocular lens designs and to compare with the area under log contrast sensitivity curve (AULCSF).

METHODS

The study comprised 395 eyes of 198 patients in the age of 73.1 ± 7.86 years receiving 11 different aspheric IOL designs (aberration-free and correcting) and a spherical (IOL) as control group. Follow-up examination after bilateral cataract surgery was completed within 71 ± 21.4 days after second IOL implantation. Patients underwent complete examination and biometry before surgery. The follow-up examination included visual acuity, pupil diameter, residual spherical aberration and mesopic as well as photopic contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with the Optec 6500 Functional Vision Analyzer. From the contrast sensitivity, we calculated the ICS according to Haughom and Strand.

RESULTS

The median mesopic ICS was -144, -131 and -85, and the median photopic ICS was -289, -285 and -212 for the spherical, aberration-free and aberration-correcting IOL group, respectively. While we could not detect a significant difference between the aberration groups in some spatial frequencies, the ICS showed a significant difference between the aberration-correcting and the aberration-free or the spherical group, respectively. No significant difference was found between the aberration-free and the spherical group.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICS is a useful index for evaluation of overall CS and comparison of different patient groups. With aberration-correcting IOLs, ICS was statistically better than with aberration-free or spherical IOLs, whereas the latter two showed no significant difference.

Effect of the color of the intraocular lens on optical and visual quality

Purpose: To analyze the optical quality of intraocular lenses (IOL) with an orange (PC440Y) and a yellow (SN60AT) filter, and correlate these results with the visual quality of patients with these implants. Setting: Fisabio Oftalmologνa Mιdica, Valencia, Spain. Design: Randomized prospective study. Materials and Methods: The IOL optical quality was determined using the modulation transfer function (MTF) and the spectral transmission. The visual quality of 87 eyes with cataract (51 with orange filter and 36 with yellow filter) was determined by best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and contrast sensitivity function (CSF) under photopic and mesopic conditions. To analyze the results, we use a Student's t-test. Results: Orange lens filtered more of the blue spectrum (cut-off wavelength of 370 nm) than the yellow lens (390 nm). The MTF of the yellow lens was better than the orange lens (average modulation of 0.676 for natural and 0.672 for orange). The patients' BCVA was 0.02 + 0.10 logMAR for both lenses. The CSF obtained with the yellow lens was slightly better, although without statistically significant differences (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Both lenses are of good optical quality. The patients' visual quality was similar with both lenses, and optical quality was also similar. The color of the lens does not affect the visual quality of the patient.