Search

Purpose: To assess the photic phenomena (PP) and positive dysphotopsia in candidates for presbyopia or cataract surgery and to evaluate their relationship with cataract grading systems. Design: Retrospective observational. Methods: Monocular data for 82 subjects measured during the preoperative screening were retrospectively retrieved from our database. The evaluated variables consisted of two methods for PP measurement: light distortion index (LDI) and parameters obtained from a simulator, both of which were combined with subjective bother related to PP. The cutoff for LDI that better predicted patients passing from slightly to moderately bothersome was estimated. The relationships between LDI and the following objective cataract grading methods were also assessed: objective scatter index (OSI), dysfunctional lens index (DLI), and Pentacam Nucleus Staging (PNS). Results: LDI was the best method for measuring PP, which showed a significant correlation with the bothersome question (rho = 0.34, P = 0.002) and also with OSI (rho = 0.67, P < 0.0005), DLI (rho = −0.29, P = 0.007), and PNS (rho = 0.48, P < 0.0005). The number/percentage of patients who found it bothersome was as follows: “Not at all” (18/22%), “Slightly” (41/50%), “Moderately” (15/18.3%), and “Very” (8/9.7%). The cutoff value that predicted the transition from slightly to moderately bothersome was ≥15.20% according to LDI, which could be estimated with the following values for grading: ≥2.8 for OSI, ≤7.6 for DLI, and ≥2 for PNS. Conclusions: Patients reporting moderately or higher bothersome levels in the preoperative period and with LDI 7.6 for DLI, and

Abstract Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is the leading indication for EK and may coexist with cataract and presbyopia. Notably, the outcomes of phacoemulsification in FECD patients are not as favorable as those in eyes without this condition. Historically, only monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) were recommended for these patients. However, recent reports have described the implantation of Premium-IOLs (such as Multifocal IOLs, Enhanced Depth of Focus IOLs, and Toric IOLs) in FECD eyes undergoing cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). While the results are encouraging, they are not as optimal as those from unoperated eyes, especially when comparing simultaneous procedures to sequential ones. It’s advised to perform the DMEK first to improve the accuracy of IOL calculations. Still, even successfully operated eyes may experience secondary graft failure or graft rejection after DMEK. The success rate of a secondary DMEK is typically lower than that of the initial procedure. Furthermore, if the postoperative thickness after DMEK is less than anticipated, laser enhancements might not be an option. There’s a pressing need for more controlled and randomized clinical trials to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of Premium-IOLs for FECD eyes. This narrative review aims to collate evidence on the use of Premium IOL technologies in eyes receiving EK and to underscore key points for surgeons performing EK combined with cataract surgery.

Abstract Cataract surgery has become a refractive procedure in which emmetropia is the goal, with the implantation of extended depth-of-focus or multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) being the commonly selected option to restore vision beyond the far distance. The selection criteria for implanting these lenses can differ from those for monofocal IOLs and even between technologies, as eye characteristics can affect postoperative visual performance. Corneal astigmatism is an eye characteristic that can affect visual performance differently, depending on the implanted IOL. The magnitude of corneal astigmatism, the tolerance of the IOL to this astigmatism, economic aspects, comorbidities, and the efficacy of astigmatism treatment are factors that can make surgeons’ doubt as to what astigmatism treatment should be applied to each patient. This review aims to summarize the current evidence related to low astigmatism tolerance in presbyopia-correcting lenses, the efficacy achieved through corneal incisions, and their comparison with the implantation of toric IOLs.

Abstract Background New intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled. Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35–2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined. Results Two systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR. Conclusions Additional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.

To evaluate the prediction error (PE) obtained in Phacoemulsification (Phaco) or Femtosecond (Femto) surgeries without considering posterior corneal astigmatism correction (non-PCA) versus the correction based on Abulafia-Koch + Medicontur (AK) and Barrett calculators in toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. 58 right eyes were retrospectively retrieved from our database. Two groups formed by 28 and 30 eyes depending on the surgery type, Phaco or Femto respectively, were defined. Astigmatism PE were evaluated considering the approach used for calculation of the implanted IOL power (AK) versus the estimation of PEs in non-PCA and Barrett formula. A doubly-multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the differences between-surgery types, within-methods of calculation, and interaction. Mean centroid PE was significantly different between non-PCA, AK and Barrett approaches (p < 0.0005), and neither differences (p < 0.239) nor interaction (p = 0.672) between Phaco or Femto were found. Post-hoc univariate analysis showed a higher PE for the x-component of the non-PCA method versus AK (0.15 D, p < 0.0005) and non-PCA versus Barrett (0.18 D, p < 0.0005), though no differences were found between AK and Barrett (0.03 D, p = 0.93). Against-the-rule under-correction and with-the-rule overcorrection were found in both arms when PCA was not considered. Both calculators provide comparable clinical results.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between three methods for measuring pupil size in patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs): Keratograph 5M (K5M), Pentacam AXL Wave (PW), and a simple hand ruler. Sixty-nine subjects implanted with MIOLs and measured at the three-month follow-up visit were included in this retrospective analysis. K5M and PW were used to measure the photopic (PP) and mesopic (MP) pupil sizes, and a hand ruler was used to measure the pupil under environmental light conditions (135 lux). The Bland–Altman method with its limits (LoAs) was used to assess the agreement. The median PP was 2.8, 2.95, and 3 mm for K5M, PW, and the ruler, respectively (p < 0.05). Differences in PP were statistically significant for all paired comparisons (p < 0.0005) except between PW and the ruler (p = 0.44). The LoAs for the difference in PP between K5M and PW was 0.63 mm. The mean difference for MP between K5M and PW was 0.04 mm (p = 0.34) with LoAs of 0.72 mm. MP measured with K5M and PW could be considered interchangeable, although a correction of −0.3 mm (IC95%: −0.23 to −0.39) should be applied to PP measured with PW to attain the K5M mean.

Binocular summation along all defocus range after a micro-monovision procedure has scarcely been studied. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of SMILE combined with different levels of micro-monovision in presbyopic patients and to assess the binocular summation effect on contrast sensitivity defocus curves (CSDC) at the 6-month follow-up. Efficacy was assessed on the basis of visual acuity (VA) and stereopsis at far, intermediate, and near distances. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and binocular CSDC were also evaluated. Six patients completed the study with a programmed median anisometropia of 0.81 Diopter. The median binocular uncorrected VA was better than 0 logMAR at the three evaluated distances, and stereopsis was not impaired in any patient, achieving a median of ≤119 arcsec at any distance. CSDC increased binocularly after surgery, significantly in the range of −2 to −3 D (p < 0.05). No clinically relevant changes were observed in PROs compared with the preoperative period, and all patients achieved spectacle independence at intermediate/near distance and were likely or very likely to undergo the same surgery. In conclusion, micro-monovision with SMILE could be an effective procedure, with results that might be comparable to other laser correction techniques specifically designed for presbyopia correction.

Purpose: To assess the agreement in the white-to-white (WTW) measurement with two different devices, the reproducibility and the probability of confusing sizing (PCS) in selecting a different implantable collamer lens (ICL). Study Design: Retrospective observational case series. Methods: Images of 192 eyes were captured with both devices. The WTW was measured automatically (OA) and manually (OM) with the Orbscan and Keratograph (KA and KM) by one examiner who repeated a total of four measures. A second examiner conducted a single manual measure for each device over the same image. The ICL sizing was computed for each measure of WTW and the PCS was calculated as the percentage of cases for which the confronted or repeated measure resulted in a different size of the ICL. The critical WTWs with highest PCS were identified. Results: KM overestimated the WTW versus OM in 0.13 ± 0.18 mm (P < 0.001) but not in the automated method comparison, 0.01 ± 0.19 mm (P = 0.58). Inter-examiner reproducibility (R) was higher with OM than with KM, and the intra-examiner R decreased with the average of two measures in both cases. The PCS was higher with the increase of mean differences, the limits of agreement (LoAs), and R. WTWs from 11.1 to 11.2 mm, 11.6 to 11.7 mm, and 12.3 to 12.4 mm resulted in higher PCS. Conclusion: The mean difference is not enough to apply conversions between devices and the LoAs and R should be considered. Special attention should be taken for WTWs with higher PCS.

The aim of this study was to assess the stability and differences between objective (O-Rx) and subjective (S-Rx) refraction for the assessment of the prediction error (PE). A secondary aim was to report the results of a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL). 100 subjects were included for whom S-Rx and O-Rx were obtained for all visits, and for visual performance, posterior capsular opacification incidence and Nd:YAG rates at 12 months. Either S-Rx and O-Rx showed a hyperopic shift from 1 to 6 months (p < 0.05) and stabilization after 6 months. S-Rx was related with the axial length (rho = −0.29, p = 0.007), obtaining a major tendency towards hyperopia in short eyes implanted with high-power IOLs. O-Rx showed a myopic shift in comparison to S-Rx (p < 0.05). This resulted in a decrease of the number of eyes in ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D from 79 to 67% and from 94 to 90%, respectively. The median (interquartile range) uncorrected and corrected visual acuities were 0.1 (0.29) and 0 (0.12) logMAR, respectively, and seven eyes required Nd:YAG capsulotomy at 12 months. Some caution should be taken in PE studies in which O-Rx is used or S-Rx is measured in a 1-month follow-up. Constant optimization should be conducted for this IOL after S-Rx stabilization.

Letter to the editor

Purpose. To identify the sources of error in predictability beyond the effective lens position and to develop two new thick lens equations. Methods. Retrospective observational case series with 43 eyes. Information related to the actual lens position, corneal radii measured with specular reflection and Scheimpflug-based technologies, and the characteristics of the implanted lenses (radii and thickness) were used for obtaining the fictitious indexes that better predicted the postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) when the real effective lens position (ELP) was known. These fictitious indexes were used to develop two thick lens equations that were compared with the predictability of SRK/T and Barrett Universal II. Results. The SE relative to the intended target was correlated to the difference between real ELP and the value estimated by SRK/T (ΔELP) (r = −0.47, p=0.002), but this only predicted 22% of variability in a linear regression model. The fictitious index for the specular reflection (nk) and Scheimpflug-based devices (nc) were significantly correlated with axial length. Including both indexes fitted to axial length in the prediction model with the ΔELP increased the r-square of the model up to 83% and 39%, respectively. Equations derived from these fictitious indexes reduced the mean SE in comparison to SRK/T and Barrett Universal II. Conclusions. The predictability with the trifocal IOL evaluated is not explained by an error in the ELP. An adjustment fitting the fictitious index with the axial length improves the predictability without false estimations of the ELP.

Purpose: To introduce a new application (ClinicCSF) to measure Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) with tablet devices, and to compare it against the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT). Methods: A total of 42 subjects were arranged in two groups of 21 individuals. Different versions of the ClinicCSF (.v1 and .v2) were used to measure the CSF of each group with the same iPad and the results were compared with those measured with the FACT. The agreements between ClinicCSF and FACT for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were represented by Bland–Altman plots. Results: Statistically significant differences in CSF of both groups were found due to the change of the ClinicCSF version (p

Dysfunctional lens syndrome (DLS) is a term coined to describe the natural aging changes in the crystalline lens. Different alterations in the refractive properties and transparency of the lens are produced during the development of presbyopia and cataract, such as changes in internal high order aberrations or an increase in ocular forward scattering, with a potentially significant impact on clinical measures, including visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Objective technologies have emerged to solve the limits of current methods for the grading of the lens aging, which have been linked to the DLS term. However, there is still not a gold standard or evidence-based clinical guidelines around these new technologies despite multiple research studies have correlated their results with conventional methods such as visual acuity or the lens opacification system (LOCS), with more scientific background around the ocular scattering index (OSI) and Scheimpflug densitometry. In either case, DLS is not a new evidence-based concept that leads to new knowledge about crystalline lens aging but it is a nomenclature change of two existing terms, presbyopia and cataracts. Therefore, this term should be used with caution in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.