Visual performance and subjective experience 3 months and 12 months after combined implantation of 2 new complementary continuous phase multifocal intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To assess the 3-month and 12-month postoperative visual performance and subjective quality of vision (QoV) after combined implantation of complementary continuous phase multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Private practice, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: The study enrolled 44 patients undergoing phacoemulsification with implantation of an Artis Symbiose Mid in the dominant eye and an Artis Symbiose Plus in the nondominant eye. Refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), electronic reading desk, and a QoV questionnaire were evaluated at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The mean binocular UDVA was -0.06 ± 0.08 logMAR and -0.07 ± 0.06 logMAR at 3 months and 12 months ( P = .097), respectively. The mean binocular UIVA was 0.03 ± 0.13 logMAR and 0.03 ± 0.10 logMAR ( P = 1.0), respectively. The mean binocular UNVA was 0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR and 0.07 ± 0.08 logMAR ( P = .875), respectively. There was a significant improvement in QoV for both day and night between 3 and 12 months, with a significant reduction in halos at 12 months. Spectacle independence was reported in 93.2% of cases at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The Artis Symbiose Mid and Plus IOL combined implantation provided an excellent range of uncorrected vision at 3 and 12 months. There was a significant improvement in QoV and less halos at 12 months. This IOL combination provided very high rates of complete spectacle independence.

Visual and Refractive Outcomes Following Exchange of an Opacified Multifocal Intraocular Lens.

Purpose: To assess the visual and refractive outcomes following exchange of an opacified multifocal intraocular lens (IOL). Patients and Methods: A consecutive series of 37 eyes (31 patients) that underwent IOL exchange between November 2015 and May 2021 were included in this study. The indication for surgery in all cases was opacification of a multifocal IOL. Outcome measures included design and anatomical location of the secondary IOL, intraoperative and postoperative complications, visual acuity and refractive accuracy. Results: An opacified Lentis Mplus multifocal IOL was explanted from all eyes and replaced with a monofocal IOL in 21 eyes (57%) and multifocal IOL in 16 eyes (43%). Secondary IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag or sulcus or were iris-fixated. IOL exchange was performed at a mean interval of 7 years after the primary surgery. Anterior vitrectomy was required for vitreous prolapse in 9 eyes (24%). Mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) postoperatively was -0.02 ± 0.08 logMAR for eyes with a monofocal secondary IOL and 0.02 ± 0.08 logMAR for eyes with a multifocal secondary IOL. Mean refractive prediction error was -0.57 ± 0.67 D in the multifocal-monofocal group and -0.33 ± 0.59 D in the multifocal-multifocal group. Conclusion: An opacified multifocal IOL can be exchanged for a monofocal or multifocal IOL, depending on available capsular support and the patient's desired refractive outcome. Vitreous prolapse requiring anterior vitrectomy is the most common intraoperative complication. An improvement in visual acuity and a low postoperative complication rate were achieved in this cohort of patients.

Assessment of the correlation of the tear breakup time with quality of vision and dry eye symptoms after SMILE surgery.

PURPOSE: It is well reported that dry eye symptoms can increase after many refractive surgery procedures. This study aims to provide a clinical understanding of the correlation of fluorescein tear film breakup time (FTBUT) with quality of vision (QoV) and dry eye symptoms following small incision lenticule extraction surgery (SMILE). METHODS: Patients electing to have SMILE surgery were subdivided into 2 groups: Group 1 included short preoperative FTBUTs of 3 to 6 seconds (s); Group 2 included long FTBUTs of ≥ 8 s. Uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, FTBUT, QoV and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaires were recorded 1 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty-nine subjects were included in each group. There was no significant difference in visual outcomes between the 2 groups at both the 1- and 6-month postoperative assessments. FTBUT remained significantly lower in group 1. Oxford staining was initially higher for group 1 at 1 month (P = 0.007), but there was no significant difference at 6 months (P = 0.180). There was no significant difference in QoV or OSDI scores between the 2 groups at both postoperative visits. CONCLUSIONS: Low preoperative FTBUT (3-6 s) does not appear to negatively affect postoperative visual outcomes or results in a greater likelihood of dry eye symptoms and poor ocular surface compared to eyes with a longer preoperative FTBUT. These results suggest that a low preoperative FTBUT does not necessarily increase the likelihood of poor visual acuity, dry eyes symptoms, or poor ocular surface outcomes following SMILE surgery.

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction 1 and 12 months after combined implantation of extended depth of focus and trifocal intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To assess the 1-month and 12-month postoperative visual performance and subjective outcomes following combined implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a trifocal IOL. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing refractive lens extraction or cataract surgery with combined implantation of an EDOF IOL (dominant eye) and trifocal IOL. Uncorrected (UDVA) and best-corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuities, and subjective questionnaires were evaluated 1 month and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The study enrolled 58 consecutive patients. Binocular UDVA, UIVA and UNVA were - 0.08 ± 0.07 logMAR, 0.15 ± 0.14 logMAR and 0.17 ± 0.11 logMAR at 1 month, compared to - 0.09 ± 0.06 logMAR (P = .323), 0.11 ± 0.10 logMAR (P = .030) and 0.13 ± 0.10 logMAR (P = 0.008) at 12 months. Satisfaction was high with 93.1% of patients fulfilled or more than fulfilled postoperatively, and 84.5% and 86.3% reported spectacle independence for near at the respective postoperative assessments. The mean daytime and nighttime quality of vision (QoV) scores were 9.12 ± 0.94 and 7.88 ± 1.74 at 1 month, compared to 9.24 ± 0.78 (P = .183) and 8.26 ± 1.38 (P = .043) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This IOL combination provides good unaided visual acuity at 1 and 12 months postoperatively, with high functional vision and postoperative satisfaction reported at 1 and 12 months. However, a significant improvement in overall nighttime QoV at the 12 months assessment was found.

Visual Outcomes and Subjective Experience After Combined Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus and Trifocal IOLs.

PURPOSE: To evaluate postoperative visual performance and patient-reported outcomes following combined implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a trifocal IOL. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing refractive lens extraction or cataract surgery with combined implantation of an EDOF IOL (dominant eye) and a trifocal IOL in the nondominant eye. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuities, defocus curves, and subjective questionnaires were evaluated 1 month postoperatively. RESULTS: The study enrolled 100 consecutive patients (200 eyes). The postoperative mean binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA were -0.08 ± 0.07, 0.13 ± 0.12, and 0.17 ± 0.11 logMAR, respectively. The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters of the refractive target was 65% and 96% with EDOF IOLs, and 76% and 99% with trifocal IOLs, respectively. Of all patients, 91% were satisfied or more than satisfied with the procedure, and 87% of patients were spectacle free for near vision. On a scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very), mean scores of 0.52 ± 0.83, 0.71 ± 0.83, and 0.34 ± 0.73 were reported for glare, halos, and starbursts. The mean daytime and nighttime Quality of Vision scores were 9.13 ± 0.91 and 7.96 ± 1.57, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of an EDOF IOL and a trifocal IOL provides good unaided visual acuity for distance and near. This IOL combination provides high postoperative satisfaction and functional vision, but some early visual side effects were reported. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(5):326-333.].

Unilateral ectasia after small-incision lenticule extraction.

A 23-year-old man developed unilateral corneal ectasia after bilateral small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). The preoperative corneal topography was normal, with a minimum corneal thickness of 582 µm and 586 µm in the right eye and left eye, respectively. The refractive correction was -3.00 diopters (D) sphere in the right eye and -3.50 D sphere in the left eye. At the 12-month postoperative visit, corneal topography showed early signs of ectasia in the right eye; the ectasia had deteriorated by the 15-month examination. Corneal crosslinking was performed to arrest further progression. At the last examination, the uncorrected distance visual acuity in the right eye was 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and the corrected distance visual acuity, -0.1 logMAR.

Investigating the impact of preoperative corneal astigmatism orientation on the postoperative spherical equivalent refraction following intraocular lens implantation.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the impact of the orientation of preoperative corneal astigmatism on achieving the postoperative target refraction following monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. METHODS: This study enrolled 339 eyes who had uneventful cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange (RLE) with subsequent monofocal IOL implantation. Eyes were initially categorized dependent upon axial length and then on the orientation of preoperative anterior corneal astigmatism. Group 1 had against-the-rule (ATR) anterior corneal astigmatism, group 2 had with-the-rule (WTR) anterior corneal astigmatism, and group 3 had oblique (OB) anterior corneal astigmatism. The preoperative corneal astigmatism was determined by the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). Postoperative refraction was completed for all eyes, and the results were calculated and compared for the separate groups. RESULTS: In eyes with axial lengths greater than 22.0 mm and less than 25.0 mm there was a significant difference between the magnitude of preoperative corneal astigmatism between groups 2 and 3 with 0.827 ± 0.376 D in group 2, and 0.677 ± 0.387 D in group 3. The mean postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) prediction error was - 0.132 ± 0.475 D in group 1, 0.026 ± 0.497 D in group 2, and - 0.130 ± 0.477 D in group 3. There was a significant difference between groups 1 and 2. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of preoperative corneal astigmatism and postoperative SE prediction error between the anterior corneal astigmatism orientation groups in eyes with axial lengths of less than or equal to 22.0 mm and greater than or equal to 25.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The orientation of preoperative anterior corneal astigmatism significantly affected the postoperative biometry prediction error in eyes with astigmatism of 1.75 D or less in eyes with the axial length between 22.0 mm and 25.0 mm. However, the results were not clinically significant.

Pupil influence on the quality of vision in rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs with surface-embedded near segment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influences of preoperative pupil parameters on the visual outcomes of the SBL-3, a rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with a surface-embedded near segment. SETTING: Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative case series. METHODS: Postoperatively, patients divided into 4 groups according to their pupil size as follows: Group A: 2.50 to 2.99 mm, Group B: 3.00 to 3.50 mm, Group C: 3.51 to 4.00 mm, and Group D: 4.01 to 4.50 mm. The uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities, IOL centration and tilt, and quality of vision (QoV) questionnaires were compared between the 4 groups for 18 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The study comprised 90 patients (180 eyes). The mean preoperative pupil (photopic and mesopic) diameter was 4.3 mm ± 0.3 (SD) and 5.6 ± 1.4 mm, respectively, which decreased to 3.8 ± 0.7 mm and 4.9 ± 1.2 mm, respectively, at 18 months. Eighteen months postoperatively, both photopic and mesopic pupil groups had a statistically significant reduction in size from preoperative levels. No significant differences in UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA were found between the groups (P > .001). Significant differences in the QoV questionnaire day scores and night scores were found between the 4 groups (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOL provided excellent optical performance during 18-months follow-up. The preoperative photopic pupil is an important parameter for consideration of this type of IOL because smaller pupils have a significant negative subjective impact on QoV.

Visual quality and performance comparison between 2 refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the 12-month postoperative quality of vision and visual performance of 2 different refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Refractive lens exchange (RLE) patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A comprised eyes receiving a Lentis Mplus LS-312 MF30 IOL and Group B, eyes receiving a Lenstec SBL-3 IOL. Refraction, uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate and near (DCNVA) visual acuities, and quality of vision were evaluated preoperatively and up to 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Each group comprised 90 eyes. Both groups had a high level of quality of vision 12 months postoperatively with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .919). There was no significant between-group difference in mean monocular and binocular UDVA, monocular UIVA, or monocular UNVA. Group B had statistically significantly better mean monocular DCNVA (P = .049), binocular UNVA (P = .011), and binocular DCNVA (P = .035). Group B had a higher percentage of complete spectacle independence. CONCLUSIONS: Both refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs provided an excellent level of quality of vision 12 months postoperatively. Both IOL models restored distance, intermediate, and near visual function; however the IOLs in Group B provided better near visual performance.

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction 3 and 12 months after implantation of a refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To assess the 3-month and 12-month postoperative visual performance and subjective patient satisfaction after refractive lens exchange (RLE) with implantation of a rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: The refraction, uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate and near visual acuities, and a quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire were evaluated 3 months and 12 months after implantation of an SBL-3 IOL. RESULTS: The study enrolled 100 eyes of 50 patients. The mean monocular UDVA was -0.02 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) ± 0.12 (SD) 3 months postoperatively and -0.01 ± 0.10 logMAR at 12 months (P = .393). The mean monocular UIVA was 0.39 ± 0.11 logMAR and 0.41 ± 0.12 logMAR, respectively (P = .06). The mean monocular UNVA was 0.12 ± 0.13 logMAR and 0.14 ± 0.12 logMAR, respectively (P = .077). The mean QoV score was 8.26 ± 1.16 at 3 months with a significant improvement at 12 months, at which time the mean QoV score was 8.84 ± 1.08 (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: This asymmetric multifocal IOL provided excellent unaided vision with no significant difference in near, intermediate, and distance vision 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. However, there was a significant improvement in subjective outcomes at the second postoperative assessment, during which patients reported a significantly better QoV score and less blurred vision.

Comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision with combined symmetrical inferonasal near addition versus inferonasal and superotemporal placement of rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative quality of vision between different bilateral placements of near segments of rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to determine how this affects visual performance. SETTING: Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative case series. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive patients having refractive lens exchange and implantation of rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs. Group 1 received bilateral SBL-3 IOLs and Group 2 received bilateral Lentis Mplus LS-312 MF30 IOLs, with the near segments placed inferonasally in each group. Group 3 received a Lentis Mplus LS-312 MF20 IOL in the dominant eye with the near segment positioned superotemporal and a Lenstec SBL-3 IOL positioned inferonasally in the fellow eye. Binocular uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuities, binocular uncorrected near (UNVA) and intermediate (UIVA) visual acuities, binocular distance-corrected near and intermediate visual acuities, and quality of vision were evaluated over 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The study enrolled 180 patients (360 eyes). There was no significant difference between the groups in binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA; however, there was a significant difference between the groups in quality of vision (P ≤ .001). Group 3 had significantly better overall quality of vision. CONCLUSION: When implanting rotationally asymmetric multifocal IOLs, a combination of superotemporal placement of the near segment (+2.00 diopter [D] addition [add]) in the dominant eye with inferonasal placement of the near segment (+3.00 D add) in the fellow eye yielded consistent, high overall quality of vision and uncorrected visual acuity. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Threshold limit of postoperative astigmatism for patient satisfaction after refractive lens exchange and multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

PURPOSE: To determine the degree of tolerance toward different magnitudes of residual refractive astigmatism and corneal astigmatism and the angles of corneal astigmatism after implantation of an asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative case series. METHODS: The study enrolled patients having refractive lens exchange and implantation of a Lentis Mplus LS-312 MF30 IOL. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuities, uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuities, and quality-of-vision questionnaires were evaluated. Groups were categorized based on the magnitude of refractive astigmatism and corneal residual astigmatism. Refractive astigmatism of less than 0.50 diopter (D) and more than 0.50 D and corneal astigmatism of 0.50 D or less, 0.51 to 0.75 D, 0.76 to 1.00 D, and more than 1.00 D were categorized. RESULTS: The study comprised 117 patients (234 eyes). There was a significant difference in UDVA (P = .003), refractive sphere (P = .001), and defocus equivalent (P ≤ .001) between the residual refractive astigmatism groups; however, there was no difference in quality of vision (P = .28). The same was found for corneal astigmatism with UDVA (P ≤ .001) and quality of vision (P = .16). The angle of corneal astigmatism in relation to IOL placement did not statistically affect postoperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The IOL appeared to subjectively tolerate residual astigmatism well despite a statistically significant difference in UDVA with higher magnitudes of residual astigmatism. The angle of residual corneal astigmatism in relation to IOL placement did not have a significant effect on postoperative outcomes. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.