Straylight Measurements in Two Different Apodized Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate differences in straylight between eyes implanted with a hydrophilic multifocal IOL (Seelens MF; Hanita Lenses, Hanita, Israel) and a hydrophobic multifocal IOL (SN6AD1; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX). METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, routinely obtained straylight measurements (C-Quant; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany) 3 months after standard phacoemulsification for either cataract or refractive lens procedures were compared. Patients were implanted with either the SeeLens MF IOL or the SN6AD1 IOL. Postoperative straylight values, visual acuity, and refractive outcomes were compared. RESULTS: The SeeLens MF IOL was implanted in 84 eyes and the SN6AD1 IOL in 79 eyes. The difference in straylight was 0.08 (P = .01), with the SeeLens MF IOL having less straylight. Postoperative CDVA was logMAR -0.03 ± 0.06 in the SeeLens MF group, and logMAR -0.02 ± 0.08 in the SN6AD1 group. Mean postoperative refraction was +0.01 ± 0.43 and +0.06 ± 0.35 D, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Seelens MF IOL showed a stray-light of log(s) 0.08 lower than the SN6AD1 IOL. In terms of spherical equivalent and visual acuity the lenses performed equally. More study will aid in understanding the causes and clinical impact of this difference.

Quality of vision after femtosecond laser-assisted descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty: a randomized, multicenter clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the quality of vision (straylight and contrast sensitivity) after femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (FS DSEK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: setting: Multicenter (5 ophthalmic centers in The Netherlands). study population: Eighty eyes of 80 patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction were included and were randomized to FS DSEK or PK. observation procedures: FS DSEK and PK. main outcome measures: Straylight, contrast sensitivity, astigmatism, uncorrected visual acuity, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and visual symptom score. RESULTS: Straylight at 12 months was 1.37 ± 0.2 logarithm of straylight for FS DSEK and 1.46 ± 0.2 logarithm of straylight for PK (P = .151). During 12 months of follow-up, there was a significant improvement of straylight and contrast sensitivity after FS DSEK (P < .001) and PK (P < .001). The change of straylight and contrast sensitivity correlated significantly with the change of BSCVA after FS DSEK (r = -0.645; r = 0.580) and PK (r = -0.370; r = 0.659). The visual symptom score was comparable between the 2 groups during the 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement of straylight and contrast sensitivity was significantly correlated with an improvement of BSCVA. Straylight and contrast sensitivity were improved significantly after FS DSEK and were comparable with those after PK, although BSCVA was slightly better in the PK group.

Alleviating debilitating photophobia and secondary exotropia caused by increased straylight by widening a small posterior capsulotomy.

In a patient with complaints of photophobia and an ocular deviation, straylight was found to be increased to 1.61 (log[s]), which is 5 times the normal value. The only relative clinical finding was the edge of a too small posterior capsulotomy. Visual acuity was normal. Six weeks after the posterior capsulotomy was widened to a diameter of 6.0 mm with a neodymium:YAG laser, the symptoms were resolved and the patient was satisfied. Straylight may manifest clinically as complaints of photophobia. Straylight increase, which can be related to slitlamp findings, may lead to an interventional decision. Our clinical decision-making was also guided by straylight measurements and proved to be crucial in resolving the patient's complaints. More study of clinical situations in which straylight measurement can be used is needed.

Randomised controlled trial of the effects of two rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lens materials and two surface cleaners on straylight values.

PURPOSE: In a double-masked randomized controlled crossover study we investigated both the retinal responses to straylight, and the effects of lens cleaners on straylight values, in two different RGP contact lens materials. METHODS: Thirty patients (20-59 years) wearing RGP lenses were refitted with new lenses made of Boston XO material in one eye and made of Comfort O2 (ONSI-56) material in the other eye. Reported wetting angles for the Boston XO material (103 degrees ) and for the ONSI-56 material (7.2 degrees ) were obtained by sessile drop measurements. After refitting, the study comprised three 5-week trial periods. In Period 1 half of the participants (Group A) wore Boston XO lenses in their right eye and Comfort O2 (ONSI-56) lenses in their left eye, and the other half (Group B) vice versa. In Period 2 Group A wore Comfort O2 (ONSI-56) lenses in their right eye and Boston XO lenses in their left, and Group B vice versa. All participants used Miraflow cleaner during periods 1 and 2. In Period 3, during which all participants used Boston cleaner, Group A wore Boston XO lenses in their right eye and Comfort O2 (ONSI-56) lenses in their left eye and Group B vice versa. Straylight data (log S) were obtained with and without contact lenses using the Oculus C-Quant straylight meter in all three periods. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured in the second and third periods. RESULTS: When not wearing lenses (n = 60 eyes) at the end of the second 5 week trial period straylight was measured twice with averages of 1.07 log S, and the corrected CCT measurements averaged 546 mum. Straylight values with Comfort O2 (ONSI-56) reached 1.15 log S at the end of both the second (n = 25 eyes) and third periods (n = 23 eyes). Straylight values with Boston XO were 1.17 log S (n = 26 eyes) at the end of the second period, and 1.16 log S (n = 25 eyes) at the end of the third period. CONCLUSIONS: Existing RGP lens wearers refitted with new lenses with different contact angles, made of Boston XO and Comfort O2 (ONSI-56) showed, over three 5 week periods, relatively small increases in straylight, which were functionally comparable, irrespective of the type of lens material or lens cleaner used. At every visit, straylight values and CCTs returned to baseline levels after RGP lens removal, confirming that the straylight fluctuations were mainly due to scattering from the RGP lenses; or tear film interaction; or a combination of both.

Intraocular straylight after implantation of the multifocal AcrySof ReSTOR SA60D3 diffractive intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To measure intraocular straylight (as a measure of glare) after cataract surgery and implantation of an AcrySof ReSTOR SA60D3 multifocal or AcrySof SA60AT monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (both Alcon Laboratories). SETTING: University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht; Isala Clinics, Zwolle; Netherlands Institute for Neurosciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. METHODS: In a prospective open observational case series, a newly developed straylight meter was used to objectively measure straylight 6 months postoperatively in 66 eyes with a diffractive AcrySof ReSTOR SA60D3 IOL (multifocal group) and 40 eyes with a monofocal AcrySof SA60AT IOL (monofocal group). A comparison of straylight levels in an age-matched population without cataract (control group) was performed. RESULTS: The straylight level was 1.20 log units +/- 0.16 (SD) in the multifocal group and 1.10 +/- 0.19 log units in the monofocal group. When the difference in mean level of straylight was adjusted for age, mean straylight levels were 0.078 log units lower in the monofocal group than in the multifocal group (P = .026). Straylight levels in both pseudophakic groups were lower than in the control group without cataract (P< .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Levels of intraocular straylight log(s) were significantly lower for both types of IOL than in age-matched subjects from the normal population. The mean level of intraocular straylight 6 months postoperatively was higher in patients with an AcrySof ReSTOR SA60D3 IOL than in patients with a monofocal AcrySof SA60AT IOL. Implantation of the former IOL would therefore result in a smaller gain in contrast sensitivity and a smaller reduction in glare and halos than implantation of the latter IOL.