Visual outcomes of combined use of implantable collamer lens implantation and laser corneal visual correction for myopia over -18.00 diopters.

PURPOSE: To explore visual outcomes in patients with extreme myopia receiving an implantable collamer lens (ICL) at -18.00 diopters (D), with central port, followed by bioptics by laser vision correction (laser in situ keratomileusis [LASIK] or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK]) to address residual myopia or myopic astigmatism. SETTING: Clínica Baviera (Aier Eye Hospital Group), Bilbao, Spain. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of cases. METHODS: The study assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction after implantation of the ICL and bioptics. The model implanted was V4c and EVO, with a correction of -18.00 D. Bioptics were performed at least 3 months after implantation, and patients were followed up for at least 3 months after LASIK or PRK. RESULTS: The analysis included 125 eyes from 90 patients. Of these, 51.2% underwent LASIK and 48.8% PRK. Mean time from implantation to bioptics was 5.9 ± 9.4 months. Patients were followed up for a mean of 40.2 ± 37.9 months after bioptics. Median manifest refractive spherical equivalent was -2.89 D before bioptics and -0.49 D after. Median CDVA was 0.18 logMAR before bioptics and 0.17 after. The mean safety and efficacy indices were 2.22 ± 1.88 and 2.06 ± 1.85, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Visual outcomes and safety indices after ICL implantation and subsequent LASIK or PRK in patients with extreme myopia are excellent.

Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in 5,226 Patients With Presbyopia.

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.].

Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.

PURPOSE: To assess visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes that had previously undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and to compare them with those recorded after implantation of a monofocal IOL. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cases series. METHODS: This study evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), safety, and efficacy after the implantation of two comparable trifocal IOL models and one monofocal IOL model in patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK. Patients were classified according to the implanted IOL (monofocal or trifocal). RESULTS: A total of 211 eyes from 170 patients received a monofocal IOL, and 211 eyes from 161 patients received a trifocal IOL. At the end of the study, after lensectomy, there was a higher myopic residual spherical equivalent in the monofocal group because some eyes had been targeted for slight myopia to achieve monovision; therefore, UDVA was better in the trifocal group. CDVA was comparable in both groups. As expected, both monocular and binocular UNVA were significantly better in the trifocal group. Although the percentage of eyes that lost ≥1 line of CDVA did not differ between the groups, the safety index was slightly better in the monofocal group. CONCLUSION: Although implantation of monofocal and trifocal IOLs after myopic LASIK yielded excellent distance visual outcomes, UNVA was significantly better for the trifocal IOL, with a minimally worse safety profile. Trifocal IOLs can be considered after previous LASIK for myopia, with an appropriate patient selection.

Phacoemulsification with implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens in eyes with asteroid hyalosis and synchysis scintillans.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes in both eyes of patients who undergo phacoemulsification and trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and have asteroid hyalosis (AH) or synchysis scintillans (SS) in only one eye. METHODS: A retrospective comparative case series was performed. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction after implantation of the same model of trifocal IOL in both eyes (PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F and Micro-F and Rayner RayOne Trifocal). RESULTS: A total of 164 eyes of 82 patients (41 females, 50%) met the inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in sphere, cylinder, spherical equivalent, UDVA, UIVA, or UNVA between the groups. Postoperative CDVA was slightly better in the control group (logMAR 0.03) than in the AH/SS group (logMAR 0.04) (P: 0.014). There were no statistically significant differences in predictability, safety index, or efficacy index between the groups. Overall subjective satisfaction was good (98.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Visual outcomes and satisfaction are good after implantation of trifocal IOLs in eyes with AH or SS. Therefore, trifocal IOLs should not be ruled out in these patients when no other vitreoretinal disorder is present.

Visual Performance at Different Distances After Implantation of an Isofocal Optic Design Intraocular Lens.

PURPOSE: To evaluate refractive and visual outcomes at different distances after implantation of an isofocal optic design intraocular lens (IOL) following cataract surgery. METHODS: This multicentric, retrospective/prospective, open-label, observational study considered 183 eyes of 109 patients who were implanted with the ISOPURE 123 (PhysIOL) IOL. The main outcome measures were refractive error and monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 66 and 80 cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. Binocular visual acuity at different vergences (defocus curve) was also measured. Patients were evaluated at least 120 days postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 95.7% of the eyes were within ±1.00 diopter (D) and 73.2% of the eyes were within ±0.50 D; the mean postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.12 ± 0.42 D. There were 90.54% and 98.57% of patients presenting a cumulative binocular UDVA and CDVA value of 20/25 or better, respectively; 80.65% and 50.0% of patients presented a binocular DCIVA value of 20/25 or better at 80 and 66 cm, respectively; and 41.94% of patients presented a binocular DCNVA value of 20/40 or better. The through-focus curve showed good visual acuity at far and intermediate distances with a depth of focus value of 1.50 D. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The current study shows that this isofocal optic design IOL provides excellent visual performance for far vision and functional intermediate vision with an extended range of vision. This lens is an effective option for providing functional intermediate vision and correcting aphakia. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(3):150-157.].

Comparison of Patients With Emmetropia and Presbyopia and Different Accommodation Who Undergo Unilateral or Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal IOL.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and satisfaction in patients with emmetropia, presbyopia, and greater or lesser residual accommodation who undergo unilateral or bilateral implantation of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: A multicenter, multisurgeon study was performed to evaluate outcomes in patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who underwent refractive lens exchange followed by implantation of a FineVision trifocal IOL (PhysIOL). The inclusion criteria were as follows: emmetropia, sphere -0.25 to +0.50 diopters (D), cylinder less than 0.75 D, and manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -0.25 to +0.25 D. All patients also had to have an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of Snellen 0.9 or better in each eye. The sample was divided into different clusters based on two variables: eyes operated on (monocular or binocular) and age either younger than 55 years or 55 years or older. Thus, four possible groups were created. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 690 eyes from 431 patients were evaluated. There was no difference in postoperative uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity between the groups. Binocular uncorrected near vision (UNVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes regardless of age (median [interquartile range]: 0.00 [0.00; 0.10] vs 0.10 [0.00; 0.10] logMAR; P < .001). Binocular uncorrected intermediate vision (UIVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes aged younger than 55 years than in those who underwent surgery in one eye aged 55 years or older (median [interquartile range]: 0.18 [0.10; 0.18] vs 0.30 [0.18; 0.30] logMAR; P < .001). The efficacy and safety indexes were 0.98 ± 0.09 and 1.01 ± 0.06, respectively. A total of 93.3% of eyes were within the 0.50 D range in postoperative MRSE. Visual dysphotopsia was worse in patients with both eyes operated on, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that after refractive lens exchange, patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who received a trifocal IOL in one or both eyes achieved good UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA. Regarding near binocular visual acuity, results were better for patients who underwent surgery on both eyes than for those who underwent surgery on one eye. Regarding binocular intermediate visual acuity, patients aged younger than 55 years with both lenses replaced had better results than those 55 years or older with only one lens replaced. However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA or patient satisfaction. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(12):817-824.].

Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of two models of trifocal intraocular lenses in eyes with previous corneal ablation to treat hyperopia.

BACKGROUND: To assess whether a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with neutral spherical aberration (SA) provides better visual and refractive outcomes than a trifocal IOL with negative SA after hyperopic corneal laser ablation. METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified according to the IOL implanted after cataract or clear lens phacoemulsification [group 1, PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (negative SA); group 2, Rayner RayOne Trifocal (neutral SA)]. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction. RESULTS: 198 eyes of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 120 eyes and group 2 comprised 78 eyes. At completion, the refractive and predictability results were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 for manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) (P < 0.001). Differences were not significant for UDVA (P = 0.647), CDVA (P = 0.343), UIVA (P = 0.059), UNVA (P = 0.382), binocular UIVA (P = 0.157), or binocular UNVA (P = 0.527). Safety and efficacy indices in refractive lens exchange (RLE) eyes were 0.96 and 0.91, and 0.89 and 0.93 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.254 and 0.168). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (P > 0.05, all items). CONCLUSION: In eyes previously treated with hyperopic corneal ablation, implantation of a trifocal IOL with neutral SA provided better efficacy and safety outcomes but worse predictability outcomes than those obtained with a trifocal model with negative SA.

Trifocal IOL Implantation in Eyes With Previous Laser Corneal Refractive Surgery: The Impact of Corneal Spherical Aberration on Postoperative Visual Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To analyze corneal aberrations and factors affecting visual outcomes after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes previously treated with laser corneal refractive surgery. METHODS: This retrospective case series included 222 consecutive eyes implanted with the trifocal FineVision Micro-F IOL (PhysIOL) after laser corneal refractive surgery. The series was divided into two groups according to safety outcomes after lensectomy: eyes with loss of one or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [n = 59, 26.5%]) (failed eyes group) and eyes with no loss or gain in CDVA lines (n = 163, 73.4%]) (successful eyes group). Distribution of tomographic corneal aberrations (spherical aberration [Z40], comatic and root mean square of higher order aberrations [RMS-HOA]), laser corneal refractive surgery error, kappa angle, and CDVA after laser corneal refractive surgery were compared among both groups. RESULTS: Mean CDVA after lensectomy was 0.15 ± 0.07 logMAR (range: 0.05 to 0.30 logMAR) versus 0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR (range: 0.00 to 0.15 logMAR) in the failed and successful eyes groups, respectively (P < .001). Comparison of both groups showed that failed eyes had a statistically significantly higher grade of hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery than successful eyes measured as mean sphere (+0.71 ± 3.10 diopters [D] [range: -7.75 to +6.00 D] vs -0.46 ± 3.70 D [range: -10.75 to +6.00 D], P < .01), spherical equivalent (+0.27 ± 3.10 D [range: -8.00 to +5.50 D] vs -0.97 ± 3.60 D [range: -12.50 to +4.90 D], P < .05), and percentage of hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery (64% vs 43.5%, P < .05). Corneal aberration analysis showed that mean Z40 values were significantly more negative in the failed eyes group than in the successful eyes group (+0.07 ± 0.40 mm [range: -0.82 to +0.65 mm] vs +0.18 ± 0.37 mm [range: -0.79 to +0.87 mm], P < .05). Laser corneal refractive surgery cylinder was distributed homogeneously between both groups, as well as coma and RMS-HOA, kappa angle, and CDVA after laser corneal refractive surgery that were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should consider tomographic corneal spherical aberration after implantation of a trifocal IOL in eyes after keratorefractive surgery, particularly in eyes previously treated with hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery, to prevent loss of lines of visual acuity after lensectomy. [J Refract Surg. 2022:38(4):222-228.].

Laser corneal enhancement after trifocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes that previously had photoablative corneal refractive surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual and refractive outcomes of laser corneal enhancement after trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes previously treated with myopic/hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery (LCRS). SETTING: Clinica Baviera-AIER-Eye Group, Spain. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative case series. METHODS: Patients were divided by primary LCRS into myopic and hyperopic groups. The outcomes evaluated were uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate (UIVA), and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction after implantation of 2 trifocal IOL models (Physiol-FineVision and Zeiss-ATLisa 839) and subsequent laser enhancement. RESULTS: 186 eyes (89 myopic and 97 hyperopic eyes) from 146 patients were assessed. At the last visit, refractive outcomes were better in myopic than those in hyperopic eyes, with statistically significant differences for sphere ( P < .001), cylinder ( P < .001), manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) ( P = .003), CDVA ( P = .005), UDVA ( P = .047), and UNVA ( P = .003) but not for UIVA ( P = .580), binocular UIVA ( P = .660), or binocular UNVA ( P = .836). Predictability differences were nonsignificant between groups for a final MRSE of ±0.5 diopters (D) and ±1.0 D (P = .167 and .502, respectively). Efficacy and safety were similar in both groups ( P = .235 and P = .080). A greater myopic MRSE was present after trifocal implantation in myopic than in hyperopic eyes (MRSE = -0.93 vs -0.69 D, P = .013), and the statistically significant differences were maintained after enhancement between both groups (MRSE -0.00 vs 0.00 D, P = .003). Overall satisfaction was similar in both groups ( P > .05 all items). CONCLUSIONS: Corneal laser enhancement after implantation of a trifocal IOL in eyes previously treated for myopia or hyperopia with LCRS was safe, effective, predictable, and highly satisfactory.

Dynamic assessment of variations in pupil diameter using swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography after phakic collamer lens implantation.

PURPOSE: To dynamically assess variations in pupil diameter induced by changes in brightness in myopic eyes implanted with an implantable collamer lens (ICL, STAAR Surgical) with a central port. METHODS: This prospective, observational single-center case series study comprised 65 eyes from 65 consecutive patients undergoing ICL implant. A modified commercially available swept-source Fourier-domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) device was used for imaging and performing dynamic pupillometry under changing light conditions before and after a mean follow-up interval of four months after surgery. RESULTS: Preoperative mean pupil size under photopic conditions was 3.38 ± 0.64 mm; after surgery, this increased to 3.48 ± 0.61 mm. Mean pupil size under scotopic light conditions was 5.72 ± 0.79 mm before surgery and 5.84 ± 0.77 mm postoperatively. The differences between preoperative and postoperative pupil diameter in miosis and mydriasis were 0.10 ± 0.44 mm (P = 0.078) and 0.12 ± 0.58 mm (P = 0.098), respectively. The scotopic pupil exceeded the optic zone of the implanted lens in 39 eyes (60%). The mean central vault value was 412 ± 177 µm under maximum miosis and 506 ± 190 µm under maximum mydriasis. We found a positive correlation between vault and differences in pupil diameter under all light conditions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Dynamic AS-OCT enables a very precise determination of the pupillary diameter in the iris plane. The changes in the pupil diameter under different light conditions after the implantation of an ICL are related to the postoperative vault.

Long-term assessment of crystalline lens transparency in eyes implanted with a central-hole phakic collamer lens developing low postoperative vault.

PURPOSE: To assess long-term crystalline lens transparency in eyes implanted with phakic collamer intraocular lens (pIOL) with a central port and low postoperative vault for correction of myopia. SETTING: Clinica Baviera, Madrid, Spain. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional single-center study. METHODS: Using a noninvasive Fourier-domain swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography system, shifts in myopic and astigmatic myopic eyes implanted with a pIOL with vaulting lower than 100 µm in miosis and more than 4 years of follow-up were dynamically evaluated. Main outcome measures were pIOL dynamic vault (vault interval and vault range [VR]), crystalline lens density, and anterior subcapsular lens opacities. Crystalline lenses were examined under slitlamp microscopy, and lens density was evaluated using quantitative Scheimpflug images. Scheimpflug images were compared with those of a control group comprising eyes that were candidates for pIOL implantation. RESULTS: The study population comprised 24 eyes from 16 patients previously implanted with a pIOL (5.82 ± 0.9 years) with central vault lower than 100 µm under photopically induced miosis. The mean vault value was 52 ± 19 µm under photopic light conditions and 113 ± 37 µm under scotopic conditions. The mean VR was 58 ± 24 µm. Anterior subcapsular lens opacities were found in only 1 eye (4.17%). The mean lens density was 7.94 ± 0.43, and no statistically significant differences were observed compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term low vaulting in eyes implanted with a pIOL with a central port for correction of myopia was associated with a low risk for developing anterior crystalline lens opacities.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Emmetropic Presbyopic Patients.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between unilateral and bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in emmetropic patients with presbyopia. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: This is a multicenter, multisurgeon study of emmetropic presbyopes who underwent refractive lens exchange (RLE) followed by an implantation of FineVision IOL (PhysIOL). Inclusion criteria were emmetropic eyes, with a sphere between -0.25 and +0.50 diopters (D), cylinder of less than 0.75 D and spherical equivalent (SE) between -0.25 and +0.25 D. In addition, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) had to be Snellen >0.9 in each eye. A total of 171 eyes of 122 patients were evaluated. This sample was divided into 2 groups depending on whether they have been operated monocularly or binocularly. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were evaluated. RESULTS: UDVA and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained almost unchanged after monocular and binocular surgery. Binocular uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA) were better in those operated binocularly (0.3±0.12 vs 0.22±0.06, P < .063, and 0.09±0.08 vs 0.04±0.05, P < .027, respectively). Predictability and efficacy were higher in the binocular group, whereas safety was better in the monocular group. Visual dysphotopsia was worse and spectacle independence for all distances was higher in binocular group. CONCLUSIONS: Our research shows that RLE with binocular implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL in presbyopic emmetropic patients is more successful in UNVA than monocular implantation. However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA, UIVA, and patient satisfaction.

Determining the Potential Role of Crystalline Lens Rise in Vaulting in Posterior Chamber Phakic Collamer Lens Surgery for Correction of Myopia.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of crystalline lens rise (CLR) on postoperative vault in eyes implanted with a phakic Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) (STAAR Surgical Company, Monrovia, CA) with a central port for myopic correction. METHODS: Non-invasive Fourier-domain swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography was used for dynamic assessment of the study eyes under changing light conditions. Phakic intraocular lens (IOL) vault, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and CLR were recorded after surgery, and intra-eye differences were analyzed under scotopic and photopic ambient light conditions. Inter-group analysis and regression analysis were performed to investigate any potential correlation between these biometric variables. RESULTS: This retrospective observational study comprised 111 eyes (65 patients) implanted with a myopic Visian ICL. The mean change in CLR from mydriasis to miosis was 59 ± 60 µm (P < .001). The sample was further divided into four groups according to the CLR value in miosis: CLR < 0, 0 to 200, 201 to 350, and > 350 µm. A significant difference in central vault values was observed between the < 0 and > 350 µm groups, the 0 to 200 and 201 to 350 µm groups, and the 0 to 200 and > 350 µm groups (P < .05). Eyes with a high vault value (> 750 µm in mydriasis) had lower CLR values (P < .001) and higher ACD values (P < .001) than eyes with a low vault value (< 100 µm in miosis). The linear correlation observed was negative between CLR and ACD, positive between postoperative vault and ACD, and negative between postoperative vault and CLR (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CLR significantly affected anterior chamber depth and postoperative ICL vault. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):177-183.].

Outcomes of Flap Lift Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Enhancements in a Large Patient Population: Does Application of a Bandage Contact Lens Affect Incidence of Epithelial Ingrowth?

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of corneal epithelial ingrowth (EIG) and the visual outcomes of enhancement with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) by flap lift when a bandage soft contact lens (CL) was fitted after the procedure and when it was not. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective, interventional case series in which all patients who underwent LASIK enhancement from January 2005 to January 2015 were included consecutively. Patients were grouped depending on whether a bandage CL was fitted after re-treatment by flap lift (group 1) or not (group 2). RESULTS: A total of 16,702 eyes from 12,485 patients were included. There were statistically significant differences between the groups regarding corrected distance visual acuity (better in group 1) and safety index (better in group 2) although these were not clinically relevant. The incidence of EIG was 0.58% in group 1 and 0.55% in group 2 although, again, the difference was not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: We found no relevant differences in LASIK enhancement between patients who received a bandage CL and those who did not regarding the incidence of EIG and visual outcomes.

Dynamic Assessment of Light-Induced Vaulting Changes of Implantable Collamer Lens With Central Port by Swept-Source OCT: Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To assess dynamic variations in vault induced by changes in brightness in eyes implanted with phakic collamer intraocular lens (pIOL) with central port for correction of myopia, defining new parameters of vaulting measurement. METHODS: We used a noninvasive Fourier-domain swept-source anterior-segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) system to dynamically evaluate the shifts between the pIOL and anterior chamber structures under changing light conditions. For each eye assessed, we measured vault interval (VI), which we define based on central vault values in maximum mydriasis and in maximum miosis after light-induced changes in pupil diameter, and vault range (VR), which we define as the absolute difference between the VI values. RESULTS: The pilot study sample comprised 39 eyes (23 patients) previously implanted (mean 107 ± 156 days) with a pIOL. A significant difference in vault value was found when maximum and minimum pupil size was assessed under changing external light conditions (P < 0.001). The mean VR from scotopic (0.5 lux) to photopic (18,500 lux) light conditions was 167 ± 70 µm. CONCLUSIONS: Vault is continuously affected during movements of the pupil induced by external luminance. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Quantifiable dynamic parameters VR and VI obtained with this AS-OCT device describe the position of the pIOL in the posterior chamber of the eye in a more accurate and real way than static vault measurements, and may contribute to improved understanding of the behavior of the pIOL in terms of safety.

Outcomes of Laser In Situ Keratomileusis and Photorefractive Keratectomy in Patients Taking Isotretinoin.

PURPOSE: To determine the functional outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in patients taking isotretinoin, which is contraindicated for these procedures. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: All patients taking isotretinoin who underwent LASIK or PRK from January 2003 to September 2017 were included (Group 1). Patients were compared with those undergoing LASIK or PRK who had taken isotretinoin previously but not in the previous 6 months (Group 2). Patients were included consecutively. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients (219 eyes) were included. No significant intraoperative or postoperative complications were found. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of visual acuity, postoperative spherical equivalent, efficacy index, predictability, or safety index. When only PRK patients were taken into account, the efficacy index (P = .017), postoperative sphere (P = .041), and postoperative astigmatism (P < .001) were better in Group 2, although the difference was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, LASIK and PRK can be performed effectively and safely in selected patients taking isotretinoin. The absolute exclusion of certain systemic medications should be reconsidered.

Pupillary block glaucoma secondary to central port occlusion following insertion of a phakic implantable copolymer lens.

A 28-year-old woman had uneventful implantation of a phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) in her left eye (Visian ICL, EVO+ model, 13.2, -7.50 diopters) to correct myopia. Six days after the procedure, she presented with herniation of the iris. Surgical reduction was carried out successfully through the previous peripheral corneal paracentesis. On the following day, the patient reported ocular pain and blurry vision. Examination showed a shallow anterior chamber, moderate diffuse corneal edema, and ocular hypertension. The central port of the pIOL was blocked by iris pigment. The condition resolved completely after surgical iridectomy, and the postoperative course was uneventful. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of pupillary block after implantation of a pIOL with a central hole. This uncommon complication should be taken into consideration when the iris is manipulated excessively after pIOL insertion.

Visual Outcomes Following Bilateral lmplantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses in 10 084 Eyes.

PURPOSE: To investigate refractive and visual acuity outcomes, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence at 3 months of 2 diffractive (non-toric) trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in a large series of patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, nonrandomized clinical study. METHODS: Patients underwent lens phacoemulsification and were implanted bilaterally with a diffractive trifocal IOL: FineVision Micro F (PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or AT Lisa tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss AG, Jena, Germany). Surgeries were performed between 2011 and 2015 with at least 3 months of follow-up. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 10 084 trifocal IOLs were bilaterally implanted (5802 FineVision in 2901 patients and 4282 AT Lisa in 2141 patients). Three-month mean (± standard deviation) acuity: AT Lisa, binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), -0.01 logMAR ± 0.06; monocular distance corrected visual acuity (CDVA), 0.02 logMAR ± 0.06; binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm, 0.05 logMAR ± 0.08; binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 80 cm, -0.05 logMAR ± 0.14; postoperative spherical equivalent, 0.26 D ± 0.47; cylinder -0.34 D ± 0.38; FineVision Micro F, binocular UDVA, 0.01 logMAR ± 0.05; monocular CDVA, 0.03 logMAR ± 0.06; binocular UNVA, 0.05 logMAR ± 0.08; binocular UIVA, -0.05 logMAR ± 0.12; spherical equivalent, 0.34 D ± 0.50; cylinder -0.39 D ± 0.40. The IOLs were equivalent in achieving spectacle independence; 98% were "satisfied" to "very satisfied" with their IOL performance. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study with over 5000 patients, implantation of both trifocal IOL models provided good functional distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity, resulting in high levels of both spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.