Search

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of residual sphere on vision and satisfaction in pseudophakic patients. SETTING: Private clinics, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: A multivariate model evaluated the effect of 1-month residual sphere on outcomes of pseudophakic patients. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess the relative risk of not achieving ≥20/20 monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), ≥20/50 uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and not being satisfied with vision. ORs were assessed for residual sphere -1.00 to +1.00 diopter (D) in quarter-diopter steps, using 0.00 D as a reference. RESULTS: The analysis included 38 828 multifocal and 11 571 monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). The residual myopic sphere ≤-0.25 D and hyperopic sphere ≥+0.50 D had a clinically meaningful effect on UDVA. Although monofocal IOLs had an improvement in UNVA with every additional 0.25 D of myopia, the change in ORs with increasing myopia was not significant for multifocal IOLs. The mean improvement in UNVA comparing eyes with 0.00 D and -1.00 D sphere was 0.26 logMAR for monofocal and 0.03 logMAR for multifocal IOLs. Low near-addition IOLs had a slightly higher gain in UNVA with increasing myopia, but the gain was not as substantial as with monofocal IOLs. The effect of ametropia on satisfaction was more pronounced for multifocal IOLs. For every 0.25 D of residual myopia, there was >25% increase in dissatisfied patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although myopia improved UNVA in eyes with monofocal IOL, multifocal IOLs did not benefit from residual myopia. Multifocal IOL patients desiring distance vision should be targeted closest to emmetropia, even if it means targeting slight hyperopia.

Purpose: To compare the standard outcomes between the PanOptix and Symfony multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in Chinese patients. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study enrolled patients with cataracts between April 2021 and December 2021 at Xiamen Eye Center Affiliated to Xiamen University. The patients were grouped in the PanOptix (TIOL group) and Symfony (EDF group) according to the IOLs implanted. Uncorrected distant, corrected distance, binocular uncorrected intermediate, and near visual acuity (UNVA), distance‐corrected intermediate and near VA (DCNVA) , defocus curve, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and visual disturbances were evaluated after 3 months. Results: Forty patients (80 eyes) were enrolled in the study (20/group). Three months after the operation, UNVA (0.13 ± 0.16) and DCNVA (0.08 ± 0.08) were better in the TIOL group than in the EDF group (0.22 ± 0.08 and 0.22 ± 0.08, respectively, p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). The TIOL group achieved a better‐than‐0.15‐logMAR VA from +0.5 D to −2.5 D (40 cm). VAs of the TIOL group from −1 D (100 cm) to −4 D (25 cm) were better than in the EDF group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the intermediate and far vision outcomes (p > 0.05). Total near‐vision spectacle independence was higher in the TIOL group (80%) than in the EDF group (50%) (p = 0.039). Conclusion: Compared with EDF, TIOL leads to better near‐vision outcomes without significant differences for intermediate and distant vision outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR2100044558. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advancements in cataract surgery have broadened its scope from mere vision restoration to include correction of refractive errors and presbyopia. This evolution has introduced multifocal and extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs), allowing enhanced vision across multiple distances. However, the influence of these advanced IOLs on stereopsis remains controversial. Factors influencing stereopsis after surgery include visual acuity, interocular differences, residual astigmatism, and the type of IOL, etc. Binocular vision integration and neuroadaptation further affect stereopsis, especially in cases of presbyopia-correcting IOLs. It is widely acknowledged that bilateral implantation of presbyopia-correcting IOLs yield superior stereopsis compared to unilateral implantation. However, there remains no consensus on whether binocular implantation of multifocal or monofocal IOLs provides superior stereopsis. Most studies suggest no significant difference in stereopsis between these two types of implants. Among different types of multifocal IOLs, refractive multifocal IOLs may offer better stereopsis than diffractive multifocal IOLs when implanted bilaterally. Emerging EDOF and hybrid multifocal-EDOF IOLs also demonstrate promising postoperative stereopsis. Additionally, a mix-and-match strategy with different types of IOLs implanted in each eye may result in interocular differences in visual acuity at certain distances, potentially affecting stereopsis. Nevertheless, with appropriate selection, most patients can achieve satisfactory postoperative stereopsis. This review synthesizes current literature on the effects of presbyopia-correcting IOLs on postoperative stereopsis recovery following cataract surgery. Studies on stereopsis outcomes with different IOLs have yielded mixed results, urging further investigation for optimized surgical strategies and patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Recent advancements in cataract surgery have broadened its scope from mere vision restoration to include correction of refractive errors and presbyopia. This evolution has introduced multifocal and extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs), allowing enhanced vision across multiple distances. However, the influence of these advanced IOLs on stereopsis remains controversial. Factors influencing stereopsis after surgery include visual acuity, interocular differences, residual astigmatism, and the type of IOL, etc. Binocular vision integration and neuroadaptation further affect stereopsis, especially in cases of presbyopia-correcting IOLs. It is widely acknowledged that bilateral implantation of presbyopia-correcting IOLs yield superior stereopsis compared to unilateral implantation. However, there remains no consensus on whether binocular implantation of multifocal or monofocal IOLs provides superior stereopsis. Most studies suggest no significant difference in stereopsis between these two types of implants. Among different types of multifocal IOLs, refractive multifocal IOLs may offer better stereopsis than diffractive multifocal IOLs when implanted bilaterally. Emerging EDOF and hybrid multifocal-EDOF IOLs also demonstrate promising postoperative stereopsis. Additionally, a mix-and-match strategy with different types of IOLs implanted in each eye may result in interocular differences in visual acuity at certain distances, potentially affecting stereopsis. Nevertheless, with appropriate selection, most patients can achieve satisfactory postoperative stereopsis. This review synthesizes current literature on the effects of presbyopia-correcting IOLs on postoperative stereopsis recovery following cataract surgery. Studies on stereopsis outcomes with different IOLs have yielded mixed results, urging further investigation for optimized surgical strategies and patient outcomes.

Purpose: To manage patient dissatisfaction following multifocal intraocular lens (MF‐IOL) implantation by IOL exchange with either a monofocal or an alternative MF‐IOL, and to compare outcomes in these two groups. Methods: MF‐IOL exchange was performed in 32 patients (64 eyes) with neuroadaptation failure. The MF‐to‐MF group involved patients who had a MF‐IOL exchanged with another MF‐IOL of a different optical profile and the MF‐to‐MO group involved patients who had a MF‐IOL exchanged to a monofocal IOL. Visual outcomes and complications were analysed. The Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, Visual Function Index (VF‐14) and its Rasch‐revised version (VF‐8R) were also used to assess outcomes. Results: There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the QoV scores between the two groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences in VF‐14 scores between both groups (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, there were statistically significant differences in VF‐14 (total score, intermediate vision and near vision) in favour of the MF‐to‐MF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VF‐8R score in the MF‐to‐MF group was significantly better than the MF‐to‐MO group (p ≤ 0.001). Uncorrected and corrected near as well as corrected distance visual acuities were significantly better (p < 0.05) in the MF‐to‐MF group compared to the MF‐to‐MO group at 3 months. Conclusion: Patient dissatisfaction and neuroadaptation failure following MF‐IOL implantation can be managed by an IOL exchange with an alternative optical design of MF‐IOL or a monofocal IOL. Although, in the current study, the MF‐to‐MF group showed some better postoperative results, both options are feasible solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the clinical results of sinusoidal vision trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (AcrivaUD Trinova) and monofocal extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00) Materials and Methods: This study included 98 eyes of 65 patients implanted with sinusoidal vision trifocal IOL and 79 eyes of 53 patients implanted with monofocal EDOF IOL. The following were evaluated; Uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (UIVA, CIVA), near visual acuity (UNVA, CNVA), halo, glare, ocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity, capsule opacification. In addition, The National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) results were analysed. Results: Three months postoperatively, there were no differences between the groups in terms of UDVA and UIVA (respectively, p=0.780 and p=0.317). Near vision was found to be better for the Trinova group than for the Eyhance group (p<0.001). Eyhance IOL provided better contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies than Trinova IOL (p<0,001). Halo perception was reported for only six eyes, all of which were in the Trinova group (6.9%). Glare perception was found to be more common in the Trinova group (15 eyes (17.2%)), than in the Eyhance group (four eyes (5.3%)). With regard to the composite score of NEI-VFQ 25, no significant difference was found between the groups (p=0.201). In the analyses of subgroups, the near activities score was higher in the Trinova group, but distance activities and driving scores were higher in the Eyhance group (p<0,05). Conclusion: Both lenses have been shown to have satisfactory levels of distance and intermediate vision, with high levels of patient satisfaction. Considering their advantages over each other, IOL preferences should be made according to the priorities of the patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To learn whether contrast adaptation, induced by positive spherical defocus, is compromised by macular disorders such as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or epiretinal membranes (ERM) and to gain further insight in the functionality of the pathological macula and the level of "functional reserve" often postulated for the indication of presbyopia correcting IOLs. In a pilot study, patients with macular disorders, AMD and ERM, (n = 10) and healthy volunteers (n = 10) were tested to quantify contrast adaption after +4 D defocus for 10 min, by performing an interocular contrast matching task. Subjects manually adjusted the perceived contrast of the test patch as seen by the test eye to match to the contrast of a target patch with a fixed Michelson contrast of 0.2 as seen by the contralateral untreated eye. Patients with macular disorders subjectively matched the 0.2 target contrast with a contrast of 0.24 ± 0.06 (mean ± SD) before adaptation and with a contrast of 0.19 ± 0.04 after adaptation (p < 0.05). Accordingly, patients with macular disorders showed an induced contrast gain by adaptation of 0.05 (27%), which was not different from the control group, which showed an induced contrast gain by adaptation of 0.06 (35%). Patients with mild and moderate macular disorders, such as AMD and ERM, show an induced contrast adaptation, i.e. a gain in contrast sensitivity, at 3.2 cpd, which is not different in level from the induced contrast adaptation in healthy subjects. Macular disorders do not prevent adaptation of the patient's visual system to low contrast or blurred retinal images. Therefore, the implantation of presbyopia correcting IOLs is not a strict exclusion criterion for these patients, but the progressive nature of the macular disorder must be taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Ophthalmology is the property of Turkiye Klinikleri and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes is the property of Editorial Sanchez y Barcelo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose : To assess how eye axes and multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) centration may impact the light distortion index (LDI) and ocular scatter index (OSI). Methods: Fifty-eight subjects implanted with the trifocal MIOL Q-Flex M 640PM or Liberty 677MY (Medicontur) were included in this retrospective analysis. The following variables were collected with the Pentacam Wave (Oculus) considering the vertex normal as the coordinates center: chord-mu to the center of the pupil, chord-alpha to the geometrical center of the cornea, and chord-MIOL to the center of the diffractive ring. These measurements were correlated with OSI (HD Analyzer, Visiometrics) and LDI (light distortion analyzer, CEORLab). Results: Chord-MIOL centroid was 0.12 mm at 62°, chord-mu was 0.09 mm at 174°, and chord-alpha was 0.38 mm at 188°. A relationship was found between OSI and LDI, rho = 0.58, p < 0.0005). No relationships were found between chord-mu or chord-alpha and the LDI or OSI, neither for the total magnitude, nor the decomposition in orthogonal components (p > 0.05). The LDI was significantly correlated with the temporal centration of the MIOL versus the vertex normal (rho = 0.32, p = 0.02). Conclusions: As opposed to what has been previously described, the temporal centration of the MIOL was related to a decrease in the LDI. Future studies with extreme values of the included variables are required to establish cut-offs for considering these variables as exclusion criteria in the implantation of a MIOL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several clinical techniques have been described to evaluate visual performance and optical quality with intraocular lenses (IOL). However, subjective refraction remains one of the most important methods for assessing post-surgery results, taking decisions about retreatments, advanced spectacle prescription and the refinement of the constant for the formula used in the IOL power calculation. Beyond clinical refraction, defocus curve measurement has been described as a complementary tool for assessing visual performance and taking clinical decisions. However, to date, there are no clinical guidelines or evidence-based protocols published in the scientific literature recommended for pseudophakic patients implanted with either monofocal or multifocal IOLs. This narrative review highlights the importance of clinical refraction in pseudophakic eyes, its utility in the decision of different types of IOL implantation, and describes a clinical refraction protocol for eyes implanted with monofocal and multifocal IOLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPresbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among participants with presbyopia.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 September 2019. We searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles and the abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) for the years 2005 to 2015.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methodology.Main resultsWe identified five studies conducted in Europe with a total of 175 participants. All five studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (primary outcome of the review), while some also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 58 to 64 years. Only one study reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). In two studies, the investigators observed that participants' satisfaction or spectacle independence may be higher in the trifocal group at six months, although another study found no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction or spectacle independence between groups. Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Two studies reported information on adverse events at one year. One study reported that participants showed no intraoperative or postoperative complications, while the other study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy. The certainty of the evidence was low.Authors' conclusionsThere is low-certainty of evidence that compared to bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there is no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity and quality of life.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate visual, refractive, quality of vision, visual function and satisfaction of multifocal intraocular lens (MF-IOL) exchange with a monofocal IOL (MNF-IOL) in dissatisfied patients following MF-IOL implantation. Methods This was a retrospective case series. Bilateral IOL exchange (MF-IOL to MNF-IOL) was performed in 13 patients (26 eyes) with neuroadaptation failure. Questionnaires including the Quality of Vision (QoV), Visual Function Index (VF-14 and Rasch-revised VF-8R version), and a satisfaction questionnaire were used. Results The mean time for IOL exchange was 15 months. The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) improved from 20/26 to 20/23 (P = 0.028). The uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) worsened after exchange from 20/47 to 20/62 (P = 0.024). QoV scores improved significantly across all three subscales after exchange. Visual function for far distance improved with a change in VF-14 score from 74.2 ± 24.8 to 90.9 ± 9.1 (P = 0.03). The VF-8R score showed worsening although not statistically significant. Near vision spectacle independence was totally or partially lost in all cases. Ten patients (77%) reported they would not repeat the lens exchange. Safety and efficacy indices changed from 1.23 to 0.85, respectively, at three months to 1.24 (P = 0.871) and 0.89 (P = 0.568), respectively, at one year. Conclusion IOL exchange (multifocal to monofocal) to solve neuroadaptation failure in this case series resulted in significant improvements in dysphotopsia and improved distance visual function. However, UNVA worsened and patient satisfaction after exchange remained suboptimal with 77% claiming they would not repeat the lens exchange, suggesting the value of near vision spectacle independence for these patients.

Abstract Background The aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) for the correction of presbyopia and to assess patient satisfaction. Methods Records from three centres were reviewed to select presbyopic patients having undergone bilateral refractive lens exchange and implantation of the AT LISA tri 839MP multifocal IOL. Postoperatively, monocular and binocular distance, intermediate and near visual acuities, corrected and uncorrected, and subjective refraction were measured. Patients also completed a quality of life questionnaire. Safety evaluation included IOL stability and postoperative complications. Results 72 eyes (36 patients) were analysed. No clinically significant difference between pre- and postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was found for monocular or binocular measurements. Mean postoperative monocular CDVA was 0.02 ± 0.04 logMAR. Mean refractive values all improved statistically significantly compared with preoperative baseline (p ≤ 0.0064). Overall, 82.4% of eyes had spherical equivalent within ± 0.5 D and 97.1% within ± 1.0 D of emmetropia with a mean accuracy of -0.10 ± 0.41 D. Spectacle independence for distance, intermediate and near visual acuity was 87.5%, 84.4% and 78.1% respectively, and 78.1% of patients were satisfied with their postoperative, spectacle-free vision. Eight eyes received Nd:YAG laser treatment. No other IOL-related safety issues were reported. Conclusion AT LISA tri 839MP multifocal IOL bilaterally implanted in presbyopic patients provided excellent distance, intermediate and near visual outcomes with very accurate correction of refraction. These results were associated with a high level of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction. Trial registration Trial registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ under the identification NCT03790592 (31/12/2018).

Intraocular lens (IOL) exchange may be required after multifocal IOL implantation due to dissatisfaction. Late IOL exchange is more challenging when it is done with capsulotomy. We presented a retrospective case series study enrolling four consecutive eyes reviewing late IOL exchange due to decreased vision and dysphotopsia. High residual hyperopia, astigmatism, and IOL tilt occurred in 3 eyes, respectively. The mean time to the IOL exchange was 15.8 ± 10.63 months. After separation of the adhesions by visco-dissection assisted with a 27-gaze needle and sinskey hook, IOL was explanted. One-piece IOL was implanted in the bag in two eyes without posterior capsulotomy, whereas three-piece IOL was implanted in the sulcus after viscoelastic tamponade in the other 2 eyes with capsulotomy. No complication occurred and dysphotopsia disappeared. The mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved from 0.33 ± 0.12 preoperatively to 0.11 ± 0.13 postoperatively. In conclusion, late IOL exchange could be safely performed with proper technique and achieve good results.

Background: The aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) for the correction of presbyopia and to assess patient satisfaction.Methods: Records from three centres were reviewed to select presbyopic patients having undergone bilateral refractive lens exchange and implantation of the AT LISA tri 839MP multifocal IOL. Postoperatively, monocular and binocular distance, intermediate and near visual acuities, corrected and uncorrected, and subjective refraction were measured. Patients also completed a quality of life questionnaire. Safety evaluation included IOL stability and postoperative complications.Results: 72 eyes (36 patients) were analysed. No clinically significant difference between pre- and postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was found for monocular or binocular measurements. Mean postoperative monocular CDVA was 0.02 ± 0.04 logMAR. Mean refractive values all improved statistically significantly compared with preoperative baseline (p ≤ 0.0064). Overall, 82.4% of eyes had spherical equivalent within ± 0.5 D and 97.1% within ± 1.0 D of emmetropia with a mean accuracy of -0.10 ± 0.41 D. Spectacle independence for distance, intermediate and near visual acuity was 87.5%, 84.4% and 78.1% respectively, and 78.1% of patients were satisfied with their postoperative, spectacle-free vision. Eight eyes received Nd:YAG laser treatment. No other IOL-related safety issues were reported.Conclusion: AT LISA tri 839MP multifocal IOL bilaterally implanted in presbyopic patients provided excellent distance, intermediate and near visual outcomes with very accurate correction of refraction. These results were associated with a high level of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.Trial Registration: Trial registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ under the identification NCT03790592 (31/12/2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes following contralateral implantation of a diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) and a hybrid EDOF-multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with a violet filter in a U.S.-based population., Methods: In this prospective, non-comparative study, 60 eyes of 30 patients aged 40 years and older underwent bilateral cataract surgery and implantation of a DXR00V IOL (Tecnis Symfony OptiBlue) in the dominant eye and a DFR00V (Tecnis Synergy) IOL in the non-dominant eye. Outcome measures included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA, 66 cm), near and very near visual acuity (DCNVA, 40 and 33 cm), and patient-reported outcomes., Results: At 6 months postoperatively, binocular mean UDVA and CDVA were -0.10 ± 0.07 and -0.11 ± 0.05 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), respectively. The mean DCIVA was 0.26 ± 0.08 logMAR in the DXR00V eyes and 0.23 ± 0.06 logMAR in the DFR00V eyes. The mean DCNVA at 40 and 33 cm were 0.28 ± 0.12 and 0.30 ± 0.15 logMAR, respectively, in the DXR00V eyes and 0.07 ± 0.08 and 0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR, respectively, in the DFR00V eyes. The mean binocular DCIVA and DCNVA at 33 and 40 cm were 0.18 ± 0.05, 0.06 ± 0.08, and 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR, respectively. The percentages of patients achieving spectacle independence at far, intermediate, and near distances were 100%, 100%, and 81%, respectively., Conclusions: Contralateral implantation of the diffractive EDOF and a hybrid EDOF-multifocal IOL yielded excellent binocular visual acuity at all distances, as well as high patient satisfaction and functional performance on visual tasks. [ J Refract Surg . 2024;40(10):e699-e705.] .

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the effect of decentration and tilt on the optical quality of monofocal and trifocal intraocular lenses (IOL)., Methods: Optical quality of a monofocal IOL (AcrySof IQ SN60WF; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USA) and a trifocal IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptix; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USA) was assessed using an in vitro optical bench (OptiSpheric IOL R&D; Trioptics GmbH, Germany). At apertures of 3.0 mm and 4.5 mm, modulation transfer function (MTF) at spatial frequency of 50 lp/mm, MTF curve and the United States Air Force (USAF) resolution test chart of the two IOLs were measured and compared at their focus with different degrees of decentration and tilt. Optical quality at infinity, 60 cm and 40 cm and the through-focus MTF curves were compared when the two IOLs were centered at apertures of 3.0 mm and 4.5 mm. Spectral transmittance of the two IOLs was measured by the UV-visible spectrophotometer (UV 3300 PC; MAPADA, China)., Results: The SN60WF and the PanOptix filtered blue light from 400 to 500 nm. Both IOLs at the far focus and the PanOptix at the intermediate focus showed a decrease in optical quality with increasing decentration and tilt. The PanOptix demonstrated enhanced optical quality compared to the previous gradient at the near focus at a decentration range of 0.3-0.7 mm with a 3.0 mm aperture, and 0.5 mm with a 4.5 mm aperture, whereas other conditions exhibited diminished optical quality with increasing decentration and tilt at the focus of both IOLs. When the two IOLs were centered, the SN60WF had better optical quality at infinity, while the PanOptix had better optical quality at 60 cm and 40 cm defocus. The optical quality of the SN60WF exceeded that of the PanOptix at far focus, with a 3 mm aperture decentration up to 0.7 mm and a 4.5 mm aperture decentration up to 0.3 mm; this observation held true for all tilts, irrespective of aperture size. As both decentration and tilt increased, the optical quality of the SN60WF deteriorated more rapidly than that of the PanOptix at the far focal point., Conclusions: The SN60WF showed a decrease in optical quality with increasing decentration and tilt. Optical quality of the PanOptix at the near focus increased in some decentration conditions and decreased in some conditions, while it showed a decrease at the other focuses with increasing decentration. While tilt only had a negative effect on optical quality. When both IOLs were centered, the PanOptix provided a wider range of vision, while the SN60WF provided better far distance vision. At the far focus, the SN60WF has better resistance to tilt than the PanOptix, but the optical quality degrades more quickly when decentered and tilted., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Extended depth of focus (EDOF) and multifocal (Multi) intraocular lenses (IOL) can provide a fixed distance of near vision, which may result in some discomfort for patients who prefer different near distances. The aim of this study was to compare the vision, comfortable near distance (CND) and visual comfort in patients who underwent implantation of EDOF, Multi, and monofocal (Mono) IOLs., Methods: A total of 100 eyes were implanted with Tecnis ZXR00, ZMB00 or ZCB00 IOLs. Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), the fluctuations of CND, the ability to see at comfortable or standard near distance and visual comfort were evaluated at 3-month postoperative., Results: At 3 months postoperative, the EDOF and Multi groups showed non-inferiority compared to the Mono group in the UDVA (P > 0.05) and CDVA (P > 0.05) but superiority in the UNVA (P < 0.001). The UIVA was better in the EDOF group, with comparable results for the Multi and Mono groups. There was no difference in preoperative and postoperative CND in the three groups. The CND visual acuity (CNDVA) was lower than the UNVA in the three groups, especially in the EDOF and Multi groups (P < 0.05). The CND effectively improved patients' near visual comfort and visual clarity, except for one patient in the Multi group who complained of severe fatigue and was unable to tolerate the experience at month 3., Conclusion: The EDOF and Multi IOLs achieved excellent visual quality and superior UNVA compared to the Mono IOL, but the CNDVA was significantly inferior to the UNVA. Patients' near visual experience can be effectively improved at their CND., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: To compare clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens in patients with and without prior history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)., Methods: A retrospective study included patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery and PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) implantation. Patients were grouped: Group A for patients with history of LASIK and Group B for patients without history of LASIK. Postoperative outcome measures comprised distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity, manifest refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, patient satisfaction, and the rate of spectacle independence., Results: A total of 288 eyes (144 patients) were included: 132 eyes in Group A and 156 eyes in Group B. At 6 months post-surgery, patients of both groups achieved a continuous satisfying visual acuity from 33 cm to distance. 73% of eyes in Group A and 75% of eyes in Group B were within ± 0.50 D of emmetropia (P > 0.05). The percentages of eyes within ± 1.00 D of emmetropia were 98% for Group A and 96% for Group B (P > 0.05). The total scores of satisfaction were 52.58 ± 3.46 for Group A and 53.23 ± 3.46 for Group B (P > 0.05). Most of patients (98% for Group A, 99% for Group B) were able to be spectacle independence for daily living. 53% of patients in Group A and 51% in Group B experiencd mild to moderate negative visual symptoms, which made it a little or moderate difficult to drive at night., Conclusions: Cataract patients with and without history of LASIK could safely undergo implantation of the PanOptix IOLs, which results in precise refractive outcomes and satisfactory visual acuity. Although contrast sensitivity decreased and some negative visual symptoms were observed, patients' satisfaction was generally high due to the high rate of spectacles independence. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To compare the clinical and aberrometric outcomes obtained with a new diffractive pentafocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a diffractive trifocal IOL., Methods: Patients bilaterally implanted with the pentafocal Intensity SeeLens IOL (Hanita Lenses) (n = 30) and the trifocal FineVision POD F IOL (PhysIOL) (n = 30) during cataract surgery were studied after 1 month for refraction, visual acuity, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, Hartmann-Shack aberration, and double-pass aberration. The Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire was used to evaluate visual comfort., Results: Distance and near visual acuities were similar with the two IOLs, but distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity was better with the Intensity IOLs (0.03 ± 0.04 vs 0.11 ± 0.04 logMAR in the FineVision eyes, P < .01). The difference between objective and subjective refraction was more myopic for the Intensity IOL (-1.15 vs -0.29 diopters [D]). The defocus curve was flatter with the Intensity IOL. Contrast sensitivity was similar in both IOLs. Hartmann-Shack aberration and double-pass aberration were similar, but the modulation transfer function cut-off value was worse with the Intensity IOL: 11.6 ± 2.7 vs 15.3 ± 4.9 ( P < .01). QoV scores were better with the Intensity IOL, in particular for glare, halos, and starburst., Conclusions: In this comparative series, the pentafocal Intensity IOL provided better intermediate vision and better defocus curve than the FineVision IOL, with comparable distance and near vision. The optical disturbances as reported by the patients were higher with the FineVision IOL. Additional studies will better define the aberration profile obtained with the pentafocal IOL. [ J Refract Surg . 2024;40(9):e604-e613.] .

Purpose: To determine the impact of optotype choice on the determination of defocus curve in patients with cataract implanted with presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL)., Setting: Oftalvist Alicante, Alicante, Spain., Design: Observational case-control study., Methods: Patients implanted with Asqelio Trifocal IOL participated in this study. Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (VA) and subjective refraction were determined. Monocular defocus curves were obtained 6 months postoperatively with the Clinical Trial Suite system using either Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) or Landolt C charts under photopic conditions (85 cd/m 2 ), and range of vergence from +2.00 to -5.00 diopters (D) in 0.50 D steps., Results: A total of 49 patients were enrolled in the study, 24 in the ETDRS group (7 male, 17 female) and 25 in the Landolt C group (5 male, 20 female). Nonsignificant differences were found between patients conforming both groups, except for preoperative intraocular pressure and white-to-white distance. All patients were within ±1.00 D from intended refraction after surgery. 75% of patients in the ETDRS group and 84% in the Landolt C group were within ±0.50 D. Average difference between the groups across vergences provided by the defocus curve was 0.12 ± 0.05 logMAR units, significant for all vergences ( P < .05). Differences in VA were significant for distance, intermediate, and near between both groups, except for uncorrected distance VA., Conclusions: Defocus curves created using Landolt C charts yield significantly lower through-focus outcomes than those created with standard ETDRS charts. This should be taken into account when comparing the performance of presbyopia-correcting systems across studies where recognition charts might have been used because of patient characteristics., (Copyright © 2024 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.)

Purpose: To compare the quality of images of gratings placed in a model eye viewed through an extended depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) to that of diffractive bifocal IOL or monofocal IOL., Design: Experimental laboratory investigation., Methods: Nondiffractive wavefront shaping EDoF (CNAET0, Alcon Laboratories), echelette-designed EDoF (ZXR00V, Johnson & Johnson Vision), diffractive bifocal IOL with low power addition (SV25T, Alcon Laboratories), or monofocal IOL (CNA0T0, Alcon Laboratories) was placed in a fluid-filled model eye. A United States Air Force Resolution Grating Target was glued to the posterior surface of the model eye and viewed through a flat or a wide-angle contact lens. The contrast of the gratings viewed through the EDoF or multifocal IOLs was compared to that through the monofocal IOL. A wavefront analyzer was used to measure the spherical power of the central 4.5 mm optics of the EDoF, multifocal, and monofocal IOLs. The distribution of the dioptric power and the dioptric power map were compared., Results: The gratings observed through the flat contact lens with CNAET0, ZXR00V, or SV25T were slightly blurred when viewed through the multifocal optics. The blurred area was in the circumferential area of CNAET0, the central area of SV25T, and the peripheral area of ZXR00V. The mean contrast was 0.258 ± 0.020 for CNAET0, 0.227 ± 0.025 for ZXR00V, and 0.221 ± 0.020 for SV25T for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating. The contrast was significantly lower for ZXR00V (P = .004) and SV25T (P = .004) than 0.303 ± 0.015 for CNA0T0 but the differences were not significant for CNAET0. For the wide-angle contact lens, the contrast for CNAET0 was 0.182 ± 0.009, for ZXR00V was 0.162 ± 0.011, and for SV25T was 0.163 ± 0.007 for the 16.0 cyc/mm grating, and none was significantly different from 0.188 ± 0.012 for CNA0T0. The dioptric variations of CNAET0 indicated a ring-shaped area of higher power corresponding to the circumferential blurred zone observed through the flat contact lens., Conclusions: The wavefront shaping and echelette-designed EDoF-IOLs reduce the contrast of the grating more than the monofocal IOL when viewed through the flat contact lens. The degree of reduction depended on the design of the extended-focus optics. The difference was less through the wide-angle contact lens., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: It was aimed to compare the clinical results of the mini-monovision technique (MMV) with enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and trifocal IOL applications and to evaluate the intereye differences in the MMV group., Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational study evaluated the results of cataract surgeries performed on 48 eyes of 24 patients. Surgeries in Group I were performed for MMV using the RayOne EMV IOL targeting emmetropia in dominant eyes (Group IA) and -0.70 diopter (D) myopia in non-dominant eyes (Group IB), while those in Group II were performed with the AcrySof ® IQ PanOptix TM TNFT00 IOL targeting emmetropia. After the surgeries, uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near distance visual acuities, contrast sensitivity measurements, and defocus curves were determined. Subjective evaluation was made with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). The groups were compared statistically., Results: Postoperative refraction mean spherical equivalent was -0.25±0.22 D, -0.67±0.33 D, and -0.16±0.31 D in the three groups, respectively. A statistical difference was identified in favor of Group IA for uncorrected distance vision and in favor of Group IB for near vision (p<0.05). There was no difference in bilateral uncorrected visions in Groups I and II (p>0.05). While contrast sensitivity was better in Group I at all spatial frequencies (p<0.05), better vision was achieved in the defocus curve at distance in Group IA and at near in Group IB. In the binocular evaluation, it was seen that Groups I and II had similar results. In the subjective evaluation, NEI-VFQ-25 scores were 94.1±4.2/100 in Group I and 91.5±3.0/100 in Group II at 6 months (p>0.05). Photic complaints were significantly more common in Group II., Conclusion: With the MMV technique, it was observed that enhanced monofocal lenses provided better visual acuity at all distances and less dysphotopsia than trifocal lenses, whereas trifocal lenses were better at providing independence from glasses., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors., (©Copyright 2024 by the Turkish Ophthalmological Association / Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology published by Galenos Publishing House.)

Introduction: Modern intraocular lens (IOL) designs for cataract treatment can be broadly classified into three focal range categories; monofocal, extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and multifocal IOLs.Monofocal IOLs allow spectacle independence for one focus, typically distance. In contrast, EDOF IOLs provide a greater range of vision, extending spectacle independence to intermediate distance, while multifocal IOLs enable spectacle independence at all distances with the drawback of positive dysphotopsias and reduced contrast perception.EDOF lenses are an attractive compromise with fewer dysphotopic side effects than multifocals. The purpose of this study is to assess whether implanting an EDOF IOL in the second eye of a patient who received a monofocal IOL in the first eye can improve spectacle independence while maintaining the same optical quality as bilateral monofocal IOL implantation., Methods and Analysis: This study compares combined monofocal and EDOF IOL implantation versus bilateral monofocal IOL implantation in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in a monocentric, randomised, patient-masked and assessor-masked, parallel group trial in 88 bilateral cataract patients. The primary outcome measure is binocular photopic distance corrected intermediate visual acuity. The secondary outcome measures include (un)corrected distance and near visual acuity, reading speed at intermediate distance, quality of visual function assessments, patient-reported spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity, aberrometry, stereopsis and straylight measurement at the 3-month follow-up., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol was approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospital of Brussels (BUN 23219&#95;EDOF)., Trial Registration Number: NCT06002399., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors have no financial interest in any of the interventions or products associated with this trial., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the in vitro tolerance to decentration of biaspheric intraocular lens (IOLs) with refractive phase-ring extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and diffractive trifocal designs., Methods: This experimental study was carried out at the Department of Optics and Optometry and Vision Science, University of Valencia, Spain. The modulation transfer function (MTF) of the ETLIO130C EDOF and the TFLIO130C trifocal IOLs (AST Products Inc., Billerica, MA, USA) were determined at different levels of decentration for a given wavelength and pupil diameter using the PMTF optical bench (Lambda-X Ophthalmics, Nivelles, Belgium). The modulation transfer function (MTF) curves, the through-focus MTF curves, and the Strehl ratios were measured at 3-mm pupil aperture for 0.25-, 0.50- and 0.75-mm decentration., Results: The optical design of the trifocal TFLIO130C IOL is robust to small decentrations, with virtually no change in MTF response for 0.25 mm decentration. For greater decentration levels, the MTF response is slightly reduced with increasing decentration. The ETLIO130C EDOF design is robust to decentration, as the MTF response is only minimally affected when increasing the decentration up to 0.75 mm., Conclusions: MTF responses are slightly reduced with greater levels of decentration, but the range of focus provided by both trifocal and EDOF designs are preserved. The effects for average levels of decentration reported in the literature are minimum for both IOL designs., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MF-IOLs) are increasingly implanted as the need for good near- and intermediate-distance vision increases. Although retinal disease is known to be a relative contraindication for MF-IOL implantation, there are no detailed guidelines for MF-IOL implantation with respect to the type and severity of retinal diseases/statuses. In this study, because retinal diseases can affect the performance of MF-IOLs, we analyzed the opinions of 111 retinal specialists, who were members of the Korean Retina Society, on the implantation of diffractive MF-IOLs in eyes with 15 retinal diseases/statuses using a web-based survey. For each underlying condition, retinal specialists were asked to rate their approval regarding implantation of MF-IOLs on a scale from 1 (completely disapprove) to 7 (completely approve), under the assumption that there were no known contraindications except for a given retinal disease/status. As a result, retinal specialists disapproved MF-IOL implantation (median value of Likert score < 4) in the eyes with wet age-related macular degeneration, dry age-related macular degeneration with geographic atrophy, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy with macular edema, previous macula-off retinal detachment, previous retinal vein occlusion, and epiretinal membrane, but the scores varied by disease/status. The factors that affected the specialists' opinions were the type of practice and the frequency of MF-IOL implantation (p = 0.013 and p = 0.021, respectively; one-way ANOVA). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare intraindividual monocular visual performance of a monofocal extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and a trifocal EDOF intraocular lens (IOL) following bilateral cataract surgery., Design: Single-center, prospective, fellow-eye comparison clinical trial., Methods: All patients received uneventful bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of the monofocal EDOF Isopure IOL in the dominant eye and the trifocal EDOF FineVision Triumf IOL in the nondominant eye. Intraindividual monocular comparison included visual acuity at various distances, defocus curves, internal total higher-order aberration (HOA), spherical aberration (SA) Z(4.0), IOL decentration, and tilt. Additionally, subjective outcomes were evaluated using Halo and Glare simulation and the Seven-Item Visual-Functioning Index questionnaire., Results: In total, 25 patients (50 eyes) were included. Intraindividual monocular best-corrected distance visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and best-corrected near visual acuity were comparable (P > .05). However, monocular contrast acuity (P = .019), distance-corrected near visual acuity (P < .001), and defocus curves at defocus levels of 0.0 D (P = .005) and between -1.5 and -4.0 D (P < .001) differed significantly. At 5 mm, internal HOA and SA Z(4.0) were significantly different (P < .001) and comparable at 3-mm pupil diameter, as were IOL tilt and decentration (P > .05)., Conclusion: In this combined fellow-eye comparison, near vision was significantly better with the trifocal EDOF IOL. The monofocal EDOF IOL demonstrated similar distance and intermediate visual performance as the trifocal EDOF IOL. Overall, low values of photic phenomena and visual impairment were observed., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Copyright of Revista Sociedad Colombiana de Oftalmología is the property of Sociedad Colombiana de Oftalmologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Tomoyuki Watanabe, Akira Watanabe, Tadashi Nakano Department of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanCorrespondence: Tomoyuki WatanabeDepartment of Ophthalmology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-25-8 Nishi-Shimbashi, Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105-8461, JapanTel +81-3-3433-1111 (ext. 3581)Fax +81-3-5378-8828Email md06-watanabeto@jikei.ac.jpPurpose: Multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) can potentially affect the intraoperative view of the retina. We investigated the suitability of different lenses for viewing the macular area through two multifocal intraocular lenses in a human eye model.Methods: This study compared the image quality of graduated index (0.1 mm) in a model eye when viewed through refractive or diffractive multifocal IOLs with a meniscus or flat contact lens, and a wide field 60 diopter non-contact lens or wide field contact lens (Super Macula®).Results: Images acquired through the meniscus contact lens or flat contact lens via the central optical zone of the refractive multifocal IOL or the diffractive multifocal IOL were well focused. However, images viewed through these lenses near the center were warped and out of focus. All images viewed through a wide-field 60 diopter non-contact lens at the central optical zone and near the center were slightly out of focus. All images viewed through the Super Macula at the central optical zone and near the center were well focused.Conclusion: A wide field contact lens (Super Macula®) made it possible to obtain clear images of the macular area at multiple focal points through refractive or diffractive multifocal IOLs.Keywords: multifocal intraocular lenses, vitrectomy, macula

Background: Addressing presbyopia in the aging population, particularly in non-cataractous patients, remains a challenge. This study evaluates the outcomes of refractive lens exchange (RLE) with AT LISA tri 839MP trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in a Chinese presbyopic population without cataracts., Methods: The study included 164 eyes from 82 patients undergoing bilateral RLE at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Comprehensive evaluations encompassed visual acuities, refraction, ocular aberrometry, and subjective outcomes via the VF-14 questionnaire. The focus was on postoperative visual performance, refractive outcomes, safety, objective optical quality, and patient satisfaction., Results: 100%, 90.2%, and 89.0% of patients achieved binocular UDVA, UNVA, and UIVA of logMAR 0.1 or better at 6 months postoperatively. 97.6% of eyes were within ± 1.00 D of emmetropia postoperatively. Optical quality assessments showed increases in modulation transfer function and Strehl ratios (p < 0.05). High-order aberrations decreased significantly (p < 0.05). Despite the high incidence of posterior capsule opacification (83.2%), managed with early Nd: YAG capsulotomy, no other severe complications were reported. Patient-reported outcomes indicated high satisfaction, with an average VF-14 score of 94.3 ± 10.2 and 93.5% achieving complete spectacle independence. Halo (66.2%) was the most commonly reported optical phenomena, followed by glare (18.2%), and starburst (7.8%) after surgery., Conclusions: Bilateral RLE with trifocal IOLs in presbyopic patients without cataracts significantly improves visual acuity and reduces ocular aberrations in presbyopic patients. The procedure offers high patient satisfaction and spectacle independence, though it requires careful patient selection and management of expectations regarding potential photic phenomena., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The assessment of patient satisfaction following cataract surgery is heavily reliant on the evaluation of visual quality, specifically after the placement of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) under varying pupil conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the visual and optical clarity following cataract phacoemulsification and the use of Tecnis ZMB00 MIOL for implantation. The study involved 116 individuals (135 eyes) who received cataract phacoemulsification and underwent Tecnis ZMB00 MIOL implantation. Assessments were conducted 1 week and 3 months after the surgery. These assessments involved measuring uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for distant, intermediate, and near vision. Additionally, scatter light values and wavefront aberrations were measured under different aperture settings of 3 and 5 mm. There was no noticeable disparity in visual acuity between 1 week and 3 months after the surgery. After 3 months of surgery, there was a considerable decrease in scatter light values and spherical aberrations compared to the values observed 1 week after surgery, under the setting of a 5 mm aperture. Moreover, the modulation transfer function values showed a significant rise after 3 months following the surgery, particularly under the 5 mm aperture condition. The most substantial increase was observed at the intermediate spatial frequency of 20 cycles per degree (cpd), in comparison to the values obtained 1 week after the operation. The combination of cataract phacoemulsification and Tecnis ZMB00 MIOL implantation yielded favorable visual acuity at various distances for patients. Furthermore, enhancements in the measurements of scattered light, higher-order aberrations, and modulation transfer function values were noted 3 months after the surgical procedure, specifically under the condition of a 5 mm pupil. These findings suggest an increase in visual clarity and night vision to a certain degree., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

To evaluate the visual outcome and astigmatic correction following trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation using the modified femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate keratotomy (FSAK) in Chinese cataract patients with low astigmatism. This retrospective study included consecutive cataract patients with regular corneal astigmatism ranging from 0.75 to 1.5 D who underwent FSAK combined with the trifocal IOL implantation between November 2020 and September 2022. Monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and refractive data were collected at the 3-month follow-up. The pre- and post-operative high-order aberrations (HOAs) were recorded. The variation in astigmatism was analyzed using Alpins vector analysis. A total of 27 eyes from 23 patients were analyzed. The monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (5 m) at the 3-month follow-up was 0.04 ± 0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), which was significantly improved compared with the preoperative value of 0.95 ± 0.51 logMAR (P <.001). The corneal astigmatism was significantly reduced from 1.24 ± 0.42 D to 0.49 ± 0.34 D (P <.001). The target-induced astigmatism (TIA) was 1.25 ± 0.43 D, the surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was 1.16 ± 0.52 D, and the difference vector (DV) was 0.5 ± 0.34 D. The magnitude of error (ME) (difference between SIA and TIA) was -0.1 ± 0.41 D, and the correction index (CI) (ratio of SIA to TIA) was 0.93 ± 0.36. The angle of error was 3.92° ± 16.90°. Total HOA was reduced from 0.89 ± 1.11 to 0.41 ± 0.55 (P = 0.184), and the corneal HOA was lowered from 0.17 ± 0.18 to 0.10 ± 0.10 (P = 0.129). Implantation of trifocal IOL following the modified FSAK in Chinese cataract patients exhibited excellent visual efficacy and effectively reduced corneal astigmatism., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Cataract, defined as an opacity of the lens in one or both eyes, is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Cataract may initially be treated with new spectacles, but often surgery is required, which involves removing the cataract and placing a new artificial lens, usually made from hydrophobic acrylic. Recent advancements in intraocular lens (IOL) technology have led to the emergence of a diverse array of implantable lenses that aim to minimise spectacle dependence at all distances (near, intermediate, and distance). To assess the relative merits of these lenses, measurements of visual acuity are needed. Visual acuity is a measurement of the sharpness of vision at a distance of 6 metres (or 20 feet). Normal vision is 6/6 (or 20/20). The Jaegar eye card is used to measure near visual acuity. J1 is the smallest text and J2 is considered equivalent to 6/6 (or 20/20) for near vision., Objectives: To compare visual outcomes after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) to those of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs. To produce a brief economic commentary summarising recent economic evaluations that compare trifocal IOLs with EDOF IOLs., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries on 15 June 2022. For our economic evaluation, we also searched MEDLINE and Embase using economic search filters to 15 June 2022, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) from 1968 up to and including 31 December 2014. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches., Selection Criteria: We included studies comparing trifocal and EDOF IOLs in adults undergoing cataract surgery. We did not include studies involving people receiving IOLs for correction of refractive error alone (or refractive lens exchange in the absence of cataract)., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from the reports. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included five studies that compared trifocal and EDOF lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. Three trifocal lenses (AcrySof IQ PanOptix, ATLISA Tri 839MP, FineVision Micro F) and one EDOF lens (TECNIS Symfony ZXR00) were evaluated. The studies took place in Europe and North America. Follow-up ranged from three to six months. Of the 239 enroled participants, 233 (466 eyes) completed follow-up and were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 68.2 years, and 64% of participants were female. In general, the risk of bias in the studies was unclear as methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported, and we judged one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as low, downgrading for the risk of bias and for imprecision. In two studies involving a total of 254 people, there was little or no difference between trifocal and EDOF lenses for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6. Sixty per cent of participants in both groups had uncorrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.88 to 1.27). Thirty-one per cent of the trifocal group and 38% of the EDOF group had corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39). In one study of 60 people, there were fewer cases of uncorrected near visual acuity worse than J2 in the trifocal group (3%) compared with the EDOF group (30%) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65). In two studies, participants were asked about spectacle independence using subjective questionnaires. There was no evidence of either lens type being superior. One further study of 60 participants reported, "overall, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence", but did not categorise this by lens type. All studies included postoperative patient-reported visual function, which was measured using different questionnaires. Irrespective of the questionnaire used, both types of lenses scored well, and there was little evidence of any important differences between them. Two studies included patient-reported ocular aberrations (glare and halos). The outcomes were reported in different ways and could not be pooled; individually, these studies were too small to detect meaningful differences in glare and halos between groups. One study reported no surgical complications. Three studies did not mention surgical complications. One study reported YAG capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification (PCO) in one participant (one eye) in each group. One study reported no PCO. Two studies did not report PCO. One study reported that three participants (one trifocal and two EDOF) underwent laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) to correct residual myopic refractive error or astigmatism. One study reported a subset of participants who were considering laser enhancement at the end of the study period (nine trifocal and two EDOF). Two studies did not report laser enhancement rates. No economic evaluation studies were identified for inclusion in this review., Authors' Conclusions: Distance visual acuity after cataract surgery may be similar whether the lenses implanted are trifocal IOLs or EDOF (TECNIS Symfony) IOLs. People receiving trifocal IOLs may achieve better near vision and may be less dependent on spectacles for near vision. Both lenses were reported to have adverse subjective visual phenomena, such as glare and halos, with no meaningful difference detected between lenses., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose: To assess visual and refractive outcomes and visual function after bilateral RayOne Trifocal toric and nontoric intraocular lens (IOL) (Rayner) implantation in patients with presbyopia., Methods: Charts of patients with presbyopia who underwent refractive lens exchange with bilateral implantation of the RayOne Trifocal IOL (toric and non-toric) were retrospectively reviewed. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated at 3 months. Patient satisfaction, spectacle independence, and visual disturbance profile were assessed by questionnaires., Results: A total of 5,226 patients were assigned to one of two groups: 1,010 patients had toric IOL implantation (toric group) and 4,216 patients received the non-toric model (non-toric group). Mean ± standard deviation visual acuity at 3 months for the toric group was binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR, monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR, binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm of 0.10 ± 0.09 logMAR, binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 40 cm of 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR, postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) of -0.21 ± 0.47 diopters (D), and cylinder of -0.34 ± 0.40 D. The non-toric group had binocular UDVA of 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR, monocular CDVA of 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR, binocular UNVA of 0.10 ± 0.08 logMAR, binocular UIVA of 0.13 ± 0.11 logMAR, SE of -0.08 ± 0.38 D, and cylinder of -0.28 ± 0.34 D. No statistically significant differences were found in achieving spectacle independence and there were high levels of satisfaction in both groups., Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis with more than 5,000 patients, both the toric and non-toric RayOne Trifocal IOL models provided good visual performance at all distances, resulting in excellent levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction. [ J Refract Surg . 2024;40(7):e468-e479.] .

Background: To evaluate the optical performance and safety of a new multifocal lens with a novel optical design featuring two additional foci (or intensifiers) in patients with cataract and presbyopia., Methods: In this single-center, non-randomized prospective observational study, 31 patients underwent implantation of the new multifocal IOL between March 2020 and November 2021 at a tertiary clinical center in Buenos Aires and Ramos Mejia, Argentina. Postoperative examinations with emphasis on uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at distance and near and at two different intermediate distances (80 cm and 60 cm) were performed during the 3 postoperative months., Results: Of the 31 patients who underwent implantation of the new IOL, 30 underwent bilateral surgery (61 eyes in total). At 3 months, all 61 eyes had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) of at least 0.15 logMAR; 57 eyes (93%) had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) of 0.1 logMAR and 27 eyes (44%) had an UCDVA of 0.0 logMAR. At 80 cm, 60 eyes (98%) had an uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA) of at least 0.1 log MAR and 48 eyes (79%) had an UCIVA of 0.0 logMAR., Conclusion: The new multifocal IOL with a novel optical concept (5 foci) showed a wide range of visual acuity especially at intermediate and near distances in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Uncorrected visual acuity was excellent at all tested distances, monocularly and binocularly, spectacle independence and patient satisfaction were high., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in adult cataract surgery, yet they encounter many challenges in pediatric applications. This article elaborates on the difficulties in biometric measurements in children, the unpredictability of postoperative refraction outcomes, the lack of long-term spectacle independence in children with MIOLs, the absence of significant advantages in correcting childhood amblyopia, and the potential increase in the rate of secondary surgeries. Due to the insufficient clinical evidence supporting the use of MIOLs in children at present, it is proposed that MIOLs be cautiously applied to children with congenital cataracts in clinical practice. Further research in this area is encouraged.

Purpose: To evaluate subjective and objective outcomes after combined implantation of an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a combined technology multifocal lens (CT-IOL)., Setting: 2 clinical practices (Carolina Eyecare Physicians, Center For Sight) in the United States., Design: Prospective, unmasked, multicenter, nonrandomized bilateral eye study., Methods: Patients interested in reducing their dependence on spectacles were implanted with an EDOF IOL in the dominant eye and a CT-IOL in the nondominant eye. Refractive and visual acuity (VA) data at various distances (4 m, 66 cm, 40 cm, and 33 cm) were collected 3 months postsurgery, along with the distance-corrected binocular defocus curve and responses to questionnaires related to spectacle independence, visual disturbances, and overall visual function., Results: Data from 37 participants were analyzed. The distance-corrected binocular defocus curve showed a mean VA better than 0.1 logMAR (20/25) at all vergences from +1.00 to -2.50 diopters (D). 36 participants (97%) had an uncorrected binocular VA of 0.3 logMAR or better, at all test distances. 70% of participants (26/37) reported never wearing spectacles at any distance, and 84% (31/37) were "completely" or "mostly" satisfied with their overall vision after surgery. Halos were the disturbance reported most frequently and reported as most bothersome, with difficulty driving at night the most common visual function issue. Difficulty reading was the next most reported issue. Overall eyesight was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 92% (34/37) of participants., Conclusions: This combined EDOF/CT-IOL approach was well-tolerated by participants and provided some potential benefits relative to bilateral implantation of either lens., (Copyright © 2024 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.)