Comparison of visual outcomes in patients implanted with Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 and 1-Piece ZCB00 monofocal intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes and monocular defocus curve of a new monofocal Tecnis Eyhance IOL (Tecnis ICB00) with Tecnis 1 single piece (ZCB00). METHODS: Eighty patients diagnosed with cataract were divided into two groups: Tecnis ICB00 (n = 40) and ZCB00 (n = 40). The visual outcome was evaluated using the following parameters: uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), corrected near visual acuity (CNVA), uncorrected visual acuity contrast sensitivity (UVACS), best-corrected visual acuity contrast sensitivity (BCVACS), manifest refraction, and defocus curve and was compared at the 6th week and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: The UIVA and UNVA were significantly (P < 0.05) better in ICB00 as compared with ZCB00 at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperative. The DCIVA was significantly better in ICB00 as compared with ZCB00 at 3 months postoperative (-0.015 ± 0.04 vs. 0.01 ± 0.020; P = 0.01). Regarding contrast sensitivity, UVACS and BCVACS were significantly better in ICB00 as compared with ZCB00 at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperative (P < 0.05). The defocus curves showed that the mean visual acuity of the ICB00 group was significantly better than that of the ZCB00 group at between - 0.5 D and - 2.50 D of defocus. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cataract surgery, Eyhance ICB00 provided better intermediate vision as compared with ZCB00.

Adherence to Recommendations for Repeat Surveillance After Publication of New Postpolypectomy Guidelines.

Background and Aims: The 2012 and 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force postpolypectomy guidelines have recommended progressively longer surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk adenomas (LRAs). These guidelines require data from past colonoscopies. We examined the impact of the 2012 guidelines for second surveillance on clinical practice, including the availability of prior colonoscopy data, with the aim of informing the implementation of the 2020 guidelines. Methods: We identified surveillance colonoscopies at Stanford Health Care and the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Health Care System in 3 periods: preguideline (March-August 2012), postguideline (January-June 2013), and delayed postguideline (July-September 2017). We collected data on the most recent previous colonoscopy, findings at the study entry surveillance colonoscopy, and recommendations for subsequent surveillance. Results: Among 977 patients, the most recent prior colonoscopy data were available in 78% of preguideline, 78% of postguideline, and 61% of delayed postguideline cases (P < .001). The fraction of surveillance colonoscopy reports that deferred recommendations awaiting pathology increased from 6% to 11% in preguideline and postguideline to 59% in delayed postguideline cases (P < .001). Overall adherence to guidelines for subsequent surveillance was similar in all 3 periods (54%-67%; P = .089). In the postguideline and delayed postguideline periods combined, a 10-year subsequent surveillance interval was recommended in 0 of 29 cases with LRA followed by normal surveillance colonoscopy. Conclusion: In patients undergoing surveillance, prior colonoscopy data were not always available and recommendations were often deferred awaiting pathology. Adherence to subsequent surveillance guidelines was suboptimal, especially for LRA followed by normal colonoscopy. Strategies addressing these gaps are needed to optimize implementation of the updated 2020 postpolypectomy guidelines.