Clinical outcomes of the light-adjustable lens in eyes with a history of prior corneal refractive surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual and refractive outcomes in eyes with a history of laser corneal refractive surgery implanted with the second-generation light-adjustable lens (LAL). SETTING: Private practice, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive case series. METHODS: Eyes with a history of prior corneal refractive surgery that underwent cataract surgery with implantation of the LAL and were targeted for plano were included. Data on the type and number of prior refractive surgeries were collected, in addition to the timing and number of postoperative adjustments. The primary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity, and the percentage (%) of eyes within ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.50 D, and ±1.00 D of their refractive target. RESULTS: 76 eyes from 70 patients were included. A total of 45 eyes with a history of 1 prior refractive surgery and 31 eyes with a history of ≥2 refractive surgeries were included. 74% (n = 56) of all eyes achieved UDVA of 20/20 or better, 88% (n = 67) achieved 20/25 UDVA or better, and 93% (n = 71) were correctable to 20/20 or better postoperatively. For refractive outcomes, 66% of eyes (n = 50) were within ±0.25 D and 86% (n = 65) were within ±0.50 D of refractive target. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of laser corneal refractive surgery achieved favorable visual and refractive outcomes with the LAL. This intraocular lens (IOL), which affords postoperative adjustability, is a promising option for patients with a history of corneal refractive surgery who maintain high expectations for functional uncorrected acuity after cataract surgery.

The Use of Intraoperative Aberrometry in Normal Eyes: An Analysis of Intraocular Lens Selection in Scenarios of Disagreement.

PURPOSE: To compare prediction error outcomes between the Optiwave Refractive Analysis System (ORA) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) and two modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas (Hill-RBF2.0 [HRBF] and Barrett Universal II [BUII]), and further analyze IOL selection in scenarios of disagreement between methods. METHODS: Patients with no previous history of corneal refractive surgery who underwent cataract extraction and had intraoperative aberrometry measurements between October 2016 and December 2019 were analyzed. The prediction error for the ORA, HRBF, and BUII were calculated based on the postoperative manifest refraction. Further analysis was performed evaluating prediction error for scenarios of disagreement between the three methods. RESULTS: After exclusions, 281 eyes were included. The mean absolute prediction errors were 0.28 diopters (D) (ORA), 0.31 D (HRBF), and 0.33 D (BUII) (P < .05). In instances when the IOL recommended by the ORA was in disagreement with what was selected preoperatively, there was no benefit when the lens recommended by the ORA was selected based on anecdotal experience. When further analyzing these instances of disagreement, selecting the ORA-recommended lens when it is higher in power results in improved refractive outcomes: the ORA resulted in more eyes within ±0.25 diopters (D) of predicted spherical error (65% ORA, 37% HRBF, 32% BUII; P = .004) and fewer hyperopic surprises (5% ORA, 15% HRBF, 24% BUII; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: In normal eyes without previous corneal refractive surgery, intraoperative aberrometry is not different from to two modern preoperative IOL formulas. Placing the ORA-recommended lens when it is higher in power than that selected preoperatively results in better refractive outcomes. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(5):304-309.].

Association between axial length and toric intraocular lens rotation according to an online toric back-calculator.

AIM: To assess the relationship between axial length (AL) and intraocular lens (IOL) rotation among eyes receiving a toric IOL and subsequently entered into an online toric back-calculator database. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data collected online via astigmatismfix.com, a freely available online toric back-calculator where surgeons enter pre- and post-operative information to help manage residual postoperative astigmatism. Included records were deemed valid with entry of AL and IOL orientation between January 2017 and March 2019. Rotation was determined by a difference of ≥5° between pre-operative intended IOL orientation and actual post-operative IOL orientation. Frequency and magnitude of rotation are presented with means and associated standard deviation (SD). Linear regression models of this association are presented. RESULTS: Records of 6752 eyes were included in the analysis, of which 74.8% were determined to have a rotated IOL. The magnitude of rotation increased with each millimeter (mm) increase in AL with a mean rotation of 13.3° (SD: 12.8°) for eyes with AL 20-20.9 mm and a maximum mean rotation of 30.6° (SD: 30.3°) among eyes with AL 29-29.9 mm. General linear modeling demonstrated a significant association (P<0.0001) with a parameter estimate of 1.19 (standard error: 0.159) and R 2 of 0.0083. CONCLUSION: Analysis from an online database indicates that toric IOLs inserted into eyes with longer AL are more likely to rotate and to rotate more degrees from the target axis. The findings from this study are clinically relevant for surgeons implanting toric IOLs.

Real-world incidence of monofocal toric intraocular lens repositioning: analysis of the American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS Registry.

PURPOSE: To determine the 12-month incidence of reoperation to realign 2 commercially available types of implanted monofocal toric acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS (Intelligent Research in Sight) Registry. DESIGN: Registry retrospective study. METHODS: Eyes that underwent cataract extraction and were implanted with a TECNIS or AcrySof monofocal toric IOL in 2016 and 2017 were identified. The rate of reoperation for IOL realignment (Current Procedural Terminology code 66825) within 365 days of implantation was determined for each IOL group. Risk factors for repositioning were evaluated using logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 6482 eyes were implanted with a monofocal toric IOL, including 2013 (31.06%) with a TECNIS and 4469 (68.94%) with an AcrySof IOL. During the first postoperative year, 87 (1.3%) eyes underwent surgical IOL repositioning. The incidence of repositioning was significantly higher (P < .0001) for TECNIS-implanted (3.1%, 62/2013) than for AcrySof-implanted (0.6%, 25/4469) eyes (odds ratio [OR] 5.6; 95% CI, 3.5-8.9). Younger age (OR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86 per 5-year increase) was associated with a higher risk for IOL repositioning. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world analysis of U.S. patients in the IRIS Registry revealed that the rate of surgical IOL repositioning was 5 times higher in eyes implanted with TECNIS than with AcrySof monofocal toric IOLs for astigmatic correction at the time of cataract surgery. These findings should be considered when selecting a toric IOL for correction of astigmatism in cataract patients, particularly in younger patients with a higher risk for misalignment requiring repositioning.

Rotation Characteristics of Three Toric Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the rotational stability of the three monofocal toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) via data from an online toric IOL back-calculator. METHODS: A retrospective data review of an online toric IOL back-calculator, which allows users to input preoperative toric planning information, postoperative lens orientation, and subjective refraction. Inputted data were used to determine the optimal orientation of the toric IOL to minimize residual refractive astigmatism. Aggregate data from 3/11/2019 to 3/10/2020 were extracted and validated. Only data with ≥0.5D of residual refractive astigmatism were used in the study. Pre-operative intended IOL orientation and post-operative IOL orientation were used to calculate IOL rotation. RESULTS: After validation, 5397 entries were determined to represent patient eyes, of which 3238 represented the three monofocal IOLs evaluated. The rate of rotation for AcrySof, TECNIS, and enVista Toric IOLs was 72.7%, 83.4%, and 83.0%, respectively, and location only significantly impacted TECNIS IOLs. The magnitude of rotation for rotated IOLs was similar for all models and was significantly more for IOLs initially placed in the oblique axis. All IOL models tended to rotate in a counterclockwise direction (53.2%, 73.0%, 69.7%, respectively; p<0.05), and the tendency was greater for IOLs initially located horizontally. CONCLUSION: The AcrySof IQ Toric IOL was more rotationally stable than both the TECNIS and enVista Toric IOLs; there was no significant difference in rotational stability of the latter two.

Effect of astigmatism on visual acuity after multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation.

PURPOSE: To determine whether there is a difference in how much residual astigmatism impacts uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) after multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. SETTING: Database study. DESIGN: Retrospective data review. METHODS: An online toric IOL back-calculator allows users to input preoperative toric planning information and postoperative IOL orientation and refractive results. These data are used to determine the optimal orientation of the IOL to minimize residual refractive astigmatism. Aggregate data were extracted from this calculator to investigate factors associated with UDVA and relative magnitudes of residual astigmatic refractive error up to 2.5 diopters (D) after implantation of toric IOLs. RESULTS: Of 1919 pertinent records (455 multifocal toric IOLs and 1464 monofocal toric IOLs), a statistically significant difference by refractive cylinder category (P < .01) and a statistically significant difference by IOL type (P = .042) were noted. This difference was mostly driven by patients with residual refractive astigmatism of 1.5 D. The mean change in UDVA was 0.16 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution per 1.0 D of astigmatism. Evaluating a more homogenous dataset with the same monofocal and multifocal IOL design, there was a statistically significant effect of refractive cylinder (P < .01) but no significant effect of IOL type (monofocal or multifocal, P = .45). The differences in UDVA at different refractive cylinder values was not statistically significantly different by orientation of the current astigmatism (P = .28). CONCLUSION: Residual astigmatism after toric IOL implantation impacts visual acuity similarly in patients who had multifocal and monofocal toric IOL implantation.

Factors Associated With Residual Astigmatism After Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation Reported in an Online Toric Intraocular Lens Back-calculator.

PURPOSE: To evaluate factors associated with residual astigmatism after toric intraocular lens implantation based on data from an online toric intraocular lens (IOL) back-calculator. METHODS: This was a retrospective data review of an online toric IOL back-calculator, which allows users to input preoperative toric planning information and postoperative lens orientation and refractive results. These data were used to determine the optimal orientation of the IOL to minimize residual refractive astigmatism. Aggregate data were extracted from this calculator to investigate factors associated with relative magnitudes of residual astigmatic refractive error after implantation of toric IOLs. RESULTS: A total of 3,159 validated records with an average reported postoperative refractive astigmatism of 1.85 diopters (D) were analyzed; 566 included data allowing calculation of surgically induced astigmatism. The relative magnitude of reported residual astigmatism appeared similar whether a femtosecond laser system was used or not. Significant differences relative to the use of intraoperative aberrometry were observed, as were differences by toric calculator. Higher measured surgically induced astigmatism was most associated with higher levels of reported residual astigmatism. A significant potential decrease in the mean refractive astigmatism was expected with IOL reorientation; in 1,416 cases (44.8%), the expected residual refractive astigmatism after lens reorientation was less than 0.50 D, with a mean reduction of 56% ± 31%. CONCLUSIONS: When present after cataract surgery, higher levels of residual refractive astigmatism were most associated with large differences in measured preoperative to postoperative keratometry. To a lesser degree, intraoperative aberrometry was associated with lower levels. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(6):366-371.].

The Effect of Lens Sphere and Cylinder Power on Residual Astigmatism and Its Resolution After Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation.

PURPOSE: To analyze correlations between residual refractive cylinder (and its correction through lens reorientation) with the sphere and cylinder power of the toric intraocular lens (IOL) implanted. METHODS: An online toric back-calculator (www.astigmatismfix.com) allows users to input toric IOL planning data, along with postoperative IOL orientation and refractive results; these data are used to determine the optimal orientation of the IOL to reduce refractive astigmatism. This was a retrospective data analysis; aggregate historical data were extracted from this calculator to investigate the relationship between residual refractive astigmatism and IOL cylinder and sphere power. RESULTS: A total of 12,812 records, 4,619 of which included IOL sphere power, were available for analysis. There was no significant effect of sphere power on residual refractive astigmatism (P = .25), but lower IOL cylinder powers were associated with significantly lower residual refractive astigmatism (P < .05). The difference between the intended and ideal orientation was higher in the lower IOL cylinder power groups (P < .01). Overcorrection of astigmatism was significantly more likely with higher IOL cylinder power (P < .01), but not with sphere power (P = .33). Reorientation to correct residual refractive cylinder to less than 0.50 diopters (D) was more successful with IOL cylinder powers of 1.50 D or less (P < .01); IOL sphere power had no apparent effect. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant effects of IOL cylinder power on residual refractive astigmatism, the difference between intended and ideal orientation, the likelihood of overcorrection, and the likelihood of astigmatism reduction with lens reorientation. IOL sphere power appeared to have no such effects. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(3):157-162.].

Residual astigmatism after toric intraocular lens implantation: Analysis of data from an online toric intraocular lens back-calculator.

PURPOSE: To evaluate some possible causes for residual astigmatism after toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation based on an analysis of data from an online toric IOL back-calculator. DESIGN: Retrospective data review. METHODS: An online toric back-calculator was designed to allow users to input preoperative toric planning information along with postoperative IOL orientation and refractive results. These were then used to determine the optimum orientation of the IOL to reduce refractive astigmatism. The collected aggregate data were extracted from this calculator to investigate the associated reasons for residual astigmatic refractive error with toric IOLs. RESULTS: The study analyzed 12 812 records with a mean postoperative refractive astigmatism of 1.89 diopters (D). Refractive astigmatism was significantly higher with higher IOL cylinder power (P < .01) but was not different by IOL manufacturer. Ninety percent of IOLs were not at the ideal orientation, despite 30% being at the preoperative calculated orientation. Misalignment showed a directional bias for some IOLs but not for others. The mean calculated percentage reduction in residual cylinder after reorientation was 50% ± 31% (SD), with the magnitude of residual astigmatism after IOL reorientation expected to be 0.50 D or less in 37% of eyes (4835/12 812). Expected outcomes were significantly different by IOL type. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data from the online toric back-calculator provided insights into the nature of residual astigmatism after toric IOL implantation. The reasons for residual astigmatism in this data set varied by IOL type. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Proprietary or commercial disclosures are listed after the references.

Toric intraocular lens orientation and residual refractive astigmatism: an analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze intraocular lens (IOL) orientation data from an online toric back-calculator (astigmatismfix.com) for determining if differences were apparent by lens type. METHODS: A retrospective review of astigmatismfix.com toric back-calculations that included IOL identification and intended orientation axis. RESULTS: Of 12,812 total validated calculation records, 8,229 included intended orientation and lens identification data. Of the latter, 5,674 calculations (69%) involved lenses oriented 5° or more from their intended position. Using estimated toric lens usage data, the percentage of lenses with orientation ≥5° from intended was 0.89% overall, but the percentage varied significantly between specific toric lens brands (P<0.05). The percentage of back-calculations related to lenses that were not oriented as intended was also statistically significantly different by lens brand (P<0.05). When IOLs were misoriented, they were significantly more likely to be misoriented in a counterclockwise direction (P<0.05). This was found to be due to a bias toward counterclockwise orientation observed with one specific brand, a bias that was not observed with the other three brands analyzed here. CONCLUSION: The percentage of eyes with lens orientation ≥5° from intended in the Toric Results Analyzer data set was <1% of toric IOLs in general, with the relative percentage of Tecnis® Toric IOLs significantly higher than AcrySof® Toric IOLs. Both of these had higher rates than the Staar® Toric and Trulign® Toric lenses, with the availability of higher Tecnis and AcrySof cylinder powers a likely contributing factor. The AcrySof Toric IOL appears to be less likely than the Tecnis Toric IOL to cause residual astigmatism as a result of misorientation. The Tecnis Toric IOL appears more likely to be misoriented in a counterclockwise direction; no such bias was observed with the AcrySof Toric, the Trulign® Toric, or the Staar Toric IOLs.