BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with corneal techniques.

Corneal techniques for enhancing near and intermediate vision to correct presbyopia include surgical and contact lens treatment modalities. Broad approaches used independently or in combination include correcting one eye for distant and the other for near or intermediate vision, (termed monovision or mini-monovision depending on the degree of anisometropia) and/or extending the eye's depth of focus [1]. This report provides an overview of the evidence for the treatment profile, safety, and efficacy of the range of corneal techniques currently available for managing presbyopia. The visual needs and expectations of the patient, their ocular characteristics, and prior history of surgery are critical considerations for patient selection and preoperative evaluation. Contraindications to refractive surgery include unstable refraction, corneal abnormalities, inadequate corneal thickness for the proposed ablation depth, ocular and systemic co-morbidities, uncontrolled mental health issues and unrealistic patient expectations. Laser refractive options for monovision include surface/stromal ablation techniques and keratorefractive lenticule extraction. Alteration of spherical aberration and multifocal ablation profiles are the primary means for increasing ocular depth of focus, using surface and non-surface laser refractive techniques. Corneal inlays use either small aperture optics to increase depth of field or modify the anterior corneal curvature to induce corneal multifocality. Presbyopia correction by conductive keratoplasty involves application of radiofrequency energy to the mid-peripheral corneal stroma which leads to mid-peripheral corneal shrinkage, inducing central corneal steepening. Hyperopic orthokeratology lens fitting can induce spherical aberration and correct some level of presbyopia. Postoperative management, and consideration of potential complications, varies according to technique applied and the time to restore corneal stability, but a minimum of 3 months of follow-up is recommended after corneal refractive procedures. Ongoing follow-up is important in orthokeratology and longer-term follow-up may be required in the event of late complications following corneal inlay surgery.

Patient satisfaction and attitudes towards immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To investigate patients' first-hand experience, satisfaction and attitudes towards immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). SETTING: Royal Bournemouth Hospital, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Castle Lane East, Bournemouth, UK. DESIGN: Retrospective study using semi-structured phone interviews and qualitative content analysis. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted by an independent interviewer, to explore patients' experiences of ISBCS, at least four weeks postoperatively. The open-ended responses were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Categories and meaning units were tabulated, with the number and percentage of patients contributing to each category provided. RESULTS: 25 patients were included. All patients rated their overall satisfaction of ISBCS as 'very satisfied' and would opt again to have both eyes operated on the same day. 22 patients (88%) reported a 'very good/comfortable' surgery experience. After surgery, 24 patients (96%) felt completely safe going home, with most organizing for family or friends to drive them home. None of the patients experienced any complications in the postoperative period. 24 patients (96%) experienced only minimal reduction in accomplishing daily living activities after surgery and 24 patients (96%) said they would recommend ISBCS to family and friends. CONCLUSION: The results support wider implementation of ISBCS from the patient's perspective and experience. Providing written information addressing common themes and concerns is recommended to increase patient acceptance and uptake of ISBCS preoperatively.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation methods when targeting low myopia in monovision.

PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of IOL power calculation methods for refractive targets of myopia compared with emmetropia. SETTING: Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Australia. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: Patients undergoing bilateral, sequential cataract surgery with a plan of modest monovision were analyzed. Target refraction was plano (distance eye) and -1.25 diopters (D) (near eye). Prediction error was determined by comparing the actual postoperative refraction with the predicted postoperative refraction, calculated by the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill-RBF version 2.0 (Hill-RBF 2.0), Haigis, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas. The dataset was divided into distance and near eye subgroups. Mean and median absolute error and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 D of refractive target were compared. RESULTS: The study included 88 consecutive patients. There was a consistent trend for lower refractive accuracy in the near eyes. BUII and Hill-RBF 2.0 were the most accurate overall and least affected by this phenomenon, with 1 (1.1%) and 4 (4.6%) fewer eyes, respectively, in the near subgroup achieving ±0.50 D of target. Haigis and SRK/T were most affected, with 14 (15.9%) and 11 (12.5%) fewer near eyes achieving ±0.50 D of target (P < .05). Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q occupied the middle ground, with 6 (6.8%) and 9 (10.2%) fewer near eyes achieving ±0.50 D of target. CONCLUSIONS: IOL-power calculation formulas appear to be less accurate when targeting myopia compared with emmetropia. BUII and Hill-RBF 2.0 represented good options when planning pseudophakic monovision as they were least affected by this phenomenon and can be used for both distance and near eyes.

Methods for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Cataract Surgery after Radial Keratotomy.

PURPOSE: To compare methods of calculating the required intraocular lens (IOL) power for patients undergoing cataract surgery after radial keratotomy (RK), including the 2016 update of the True K formula. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 52 eyes of 34 patients who had sequential RK and cataract surgery performed in the same institution by 1 of 2 surgeons. METHODS: Seven IOL calculation formulae were evaluated: True K [History], True K [Partial History], True K [No History], Double-K Holladay 1 (DK-Holladay-IOLM), Potvin-Hill, Haigis, and Haigis with a -0.50 diopter (D) offset. Biometry was obtained with the IOLMaster 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and Pentacam (OCULUS Inc, Arlington, WA) devices. Subjective refraction was performed at 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively. The achieved spherical equivalent outcome was compared with the target outcome to calculate the absolute error for each eye with each formula. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median absolute error (MedAE) and mean absolute error (MAE), and percentage of patients within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D of refractive target. Mean error (ME) was also calculated to demonstrate whether a formula tended toward more myopic or hyperopic outcomes. RESULTS: Best results were achieved with the True K [History]. The MedAE was higher (0.382 vs. 0.275) with the True K [Partial History], but a similar percentage of patients (75.0%-76.6%) achieved within ±0.50 D of target. Of the methods that do not require refractive history, the True K [No History] and unadjusted Haigis were most accurate (69.2% within ±0.50 D of target), with the True K [No History] returning the lowest MedAE but also more of a tendency toward hyperopia (ME +0.269 vs. -0.006 for Haigis). The DK-Holladay-IOLM and Potvin-Hill methods were the least accurate. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the refractive history significantly improves the accuracy of IOL calculations in patients undergoing cataract surgery after previous RK. The post-RK refraction appears to be the most important parameter, with inclusion of the pre-RK refraction offering a further slight improvement in MedAE. When no refractive history is available, the True K [No History] and Haigis formulae both perform well, with the added advantage of not requiring data from separate biometric devices.

Using the first-eye prediction error in cataract surgery to refine the refractive outcome of the second eye.

PURPOSE: To refine the refractive outcome of the second eye after cataract surgery by deriving adjustment coefficients for intraocular lens (IOL) selection based on the prediction error (PE) of the first eye. SETTING: University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, England, and the Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Australia. DESIGN: Retrospective study of two heterogeneous datasets. METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine patients who underwent delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in Australia were retrospectively analyzed. The PE was determined by comparing postoperative subjective refraction with the predicted postoperative refraction (PPOR) calculated by the Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and SRK/T formulas. Adjustment coefficients were derived for each formula and applied to the second eye's IOL calculation. Separately, patient-specific optimized IOL constants were derived from the first-eye PE and applied to the second-eye calculation. The same adjustments were applied to a dataset of 605 patients in the United Kingdom to test the validity of the Australian results. RESULTS: The study comprised data on 139 patients in Australia and 605 patients in the U.K. The Australian-derived adjustment coefficients based on PE ranged from 0.30 to 0.56 (Barrett Universal II 0.30; Hoffer Q 0.56; Holladay I 0.53; SRK/T 0.48). Applying these to the U.K. dataset led to the percentage of patients within 0.50 diopters of PPOR with their second eye improving from 70.74%, 65.29%, 69.09%, and 67.77%, with the Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and SRK/T, respectively, to 72.73%, 68.76%, 71.57%, and 72.56%. Using patient-specific optimized IOL constants derived from the first eye had similar efficacy to formula-specific adjustment. CONCLUSION: Second-eye refinement via either formula-specific PPOR adjustment or patient-specific IOL constant adjustment improved the percentage of patients achieving the refractive target with their second eye.

Determinants of visual quality after endothelial keratoplasty.

Endothelial keratoplasty is now favored over full-thickness penetrating keratoplasty for corneal decompensation secondary to endothelial dysfunction. Although endothelial keratoplasty has evolved as surgeons strive to improve outcomes, fewer patients than expected achieve best corrected visual acuity of 20/20 despite healthy grafts and no ocular comorbidities. Reasons for this remain unclear, with theories including anterior stromal changes, differences in graft thickness and regularity, induced high-order aberrations, and the nature of the graft-host interface. Newer iterations of endothelial keratoplasty such as thin manual Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty, ultrathin automated Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty, and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty have achieved rates of 20/20 acuity of approximately 50%, comparable to modern cataract surgery, and it may be that a ceiling exists, particularly in the older age group of patients. Establishing the relative contribution of the factors that determine visual quality following endothelial keratoplasty will help drive further innovation, optimizing visual and patient-reported outcomes while improving surgical efficacy and safety.

Video recording of ophthalmic surgery--ethical and legal considerations.

Video documenting is increasingly used in ophthalmic training and research, with many ophthalmologists routinely recording their surgical cases. Although this modality represents an excellent means of improving technique and advancing knowledge, there are major ethical and legal considerations with its use. Informed consent to record is required in most situations. Patients should be advised of any risk of identification and the purpose of the recording. Systems should be in place to deal with issues such as data storage, withdrawal of consent, and patients requesting copies of their recording. Privacy and security of neither patients nor health care professionals should be compromised. Ownership and distribution of video recordings, the potential for their use in medical litigation, the ethics and legality of editing and the impact on surgeon performance are other factors to consider. Although video recording of ophthalmic surgery is useful and technically simple to accomplish, patient safety and welfare must always remain paramount.