Repeatability of a Combined Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Hartman-Shack Aberrometer in Pseudophakic Eyes With and Without Previous Corneal Refractive Surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intrasession repeatability of wavefront aberrations obtained by a combined adaptive optics visual simulator and Hartman-Shack aberrometer in pseudophakic eyes with and without previous corneal refractive surgery. METHODS: Three consecutive measurements were performed in one eye of each individual. Total ocular aberrations were recorded up to the 5th Zernike order for a 4.5-mm pupil. Repeatability was assessed by calculating the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), the repeatability limit (R), and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Vector analysis was performed to assess astigmatism variability between scans. RESULTS: The study enrolled 32 normal individuals and 24 individuals with a history of refractive surgery. In normal and eyes that had previous refractive surgery, respectively, the Sw values were 0.155 and 0.176 diopters (D) for sphere and 0.184 and 0.265 D for cylinder. The Sw values for all 3rd order terms ranged from 0.037 to 0.047 µm in normal eyes and 0.044 to 0.063 µm in eyes that had previous refractive surgery. The Sw for primary spherical aberration was 0.020 µm in normal eyes and 0.026 µm in eyes that had previous refractive surgery. ICC values for measurements of astigmatism yielded larger variability (ICC = 0.751 and 0.879). However, both groups demonstrated excellent repeatability (ICC > 0.9) for root mean square higher order aberrations (RMS-HOA) and total RMS values. CONCLUSIONS: In pseudophakic eyes, the adaptive optics Hartmann-Shack device demonstrated acceptable repeatability for measurement of sphere and 3rd and 4th order HOAs with higher variability for astigmatism measurements, especially in eyes with a prior history of corneal refractive surgery. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(9):e645-e653.].

Evaluating the small aperture intraocular lens: depth of focus and the role of refraction and preoperative corneal astigmatism on visual performance.

PURPOSE: To evaluate depth of focus (DOF) and visual acuities (VAs) by manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) and degree of preoperative corneal astigmatism with the IC-8® small aperture intraocular lens (SA IOL) (AptheraTM, Bausch & Lomb, Inc). SETTING: 21 investigational sites in the United States. DESIGN: Prospective, multi-center, open-label, parallel-group, non-randomized, examiner-masked, one-year clinical study. METHODS: Included patients had cataract and ≤1.5D preoperative corneal astigmatism. Patients received either the SA IOL in one eye targeted to -0.75D and a monofocal or monofocal toric IOL in the other targeted to plano (SA IOL Group) or bilateral monofocal/monofocal toric IOLs targeted to plano (Control Group). Monocular and binocular assessments included defocus curves and uncorrected VAs (distance, intermediate, and near) by postoperative MRSE; monocular VAs were assessed by degree of preoperative corneal astigmatism. RESULTS: The SA IOL Group (n=343) achieved 0.82D additional binocular DOF versus the Control Group (n=110), and SA IOL eyes achieved 0.91D additional monocular DOF over fellow eyes. Across all MRSEs, the SA IOL Group achieved monocular uncorrected VAs of 20/40 or better and binocular uncorrected VAs of 20/32 or better across all distances. Additionally, SA IOL eyes with higher (1.0-1.5D) versus lower (<1.0D) preoperative corneal astigmatism achieved equivalent monocular uncorrected VAs. CONCLUSIONS: The SA IOL provides increased DOF versus monofocal/monofocal toric IOLs and consistent monocular and binocular vision across several postoperative MRSEs and up to 1.5D of preoperative corneal astigmatism, giving patients with cataract and mild astigmatism the potential for an extended range of vision and reliable visual outcomes.

Performance of formulas included in the ESCRS intraocular lens power calculator.

PURPOSE: We wanted to compare the refractive prediction errors (PEs) of formulas included in the ESCRS IOL power calculator to aid in informed decisions on IOL power selection based on the output of this tool. SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. DESIGN: Retrospective case-series. METHODS: We have included 748 eyes of 748 patients following implantation of one of 3 lenses, single-piece: the SN60WF (Alcon, USA), PCB00/ZCB00 (Tecnis, USA) and 3-piece: MA60MA (Alcon, USA). IOL constants recommended by the calculator were utilized for the study. We performed analysis for the whole dataset, short (<22mm) and long eyes (>25mm) as well as in subgroups based on the type of the implanted IOL. SD and RMSAE were selected as the primary endpoints. RESULTS: Cooke K6 had the lowest SD of PEs in the whole dataset (p<0.05) when compared with Barrett, EVO, and Hoffer-QST. In the subgroup of long eyes, the Kane formula had the lowest RMSAE (p<0.05) when compared with Barrett and EVO. We did not find any significant differences in primary endpoints for implantation of the 3 types of IOL. However, the median absolute error following implantation of the MA60MA was significantly higher than for all other formulas except for Pearl-DGS. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant differences in the performance of formulas included in the calculator. In the whole dataset, Cooke K6 had the lowest SD of PEs among the analyzed formulas.

Effect of spherical aberration on visual acuity and depth of focus in pseudophakic eyes.

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of 4 intraocular lenses (IOLs) in various spherical aberration (SA) conditions, using the VAO adaptive optics simulator. SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Distance-corrected visual acuities at distance (CDVA), intermediate (DCIVA), and near (DCNVA) were measured in 42 dilated pseudophakic eyes at baseline and with ocular SA ranging from -0.4 to +0.4 µm in increments of 0.2 µm (6.0-mm pupil). 4 IOL types were assessed: monofocal IOLs with zero-SA, enhanced-monofocal, extended depth-of-focus (EDOF), and continuous range-of-vision. RESULTS: Compared with SA = 0 µm, significant changes (all P < .05) were: (1) zero-SA monofocal IOLs' DCNVA at high contrast improved by 0.13 logMAR with SA = -0.4 µm and worsened by 0.09 and 0.10 logMAR with SA = +0.2 and +0.4 µm, respectively. DCNVA at low contrast worsened by 0.09 logMAR with SA = +0.4 µm; and (2) with SA = -0.4 µm, the enhanced monofocal IOL lost 0.06 logMAR of CDVA at high contrast and gained 0.09 logMAR of DCNVA at low contrast. There were no significant changes from SA = 0 µm for EDOF and continuous range-of-vision IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: Zero-SA and EDOF IOLs were the most and least sensitive to SA modulation, respectively. In perfect optical systems where all the optical elements are aligned, induction of targeted amounts of negative SA improved the depth of focus of some IOL types. No benefit was found with positive SA.

Performance of IOL calculation formulas that use measured posterior corneal power in eyes following myopic laser vision correction.

PURPOSE: To compare the predictive accuracy of the biometer-embedded Barrett True-K TK and new total corneal power methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with prior laser vision correction (LVC) for myopia. SETTING: Academic clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: IOL power formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Barrett True-K TK, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and HofferQST, which use both anterior and posterior corneal curvature measurements. These were compared with the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History (NH), optical coherence tomography, and 4-formula average (AVG-4) on the ASCRS postrefractive calculator, and to the Holladay 1 and 2 with non linear axial length regressions (H1- and H2-NLR). RESULTS: The study comprised 85 eyes from 85 patients. Only the Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 had mean numerical errors that were not significantly different from 0. The EVO 2.0, Barrett True-K TK, Pearl-DGS, AVG-4, H2-NLR, and Barrett True-K NH were selected for further pairwise analysis. The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 demonstrated smaller root-mean-square absolute error compared with the Pearl-DGS, and the Barrett True-K TK also had a smaller mean absolute error than the Pearl-DGS. CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 formulas had comparable performance to existing formulas in eyes with prior myopic LVC.

A Mouse Model for Corneal Neovascularization by Alkali Burn.

Corneal neovascularization (CoNV), a pathological form of angiogenesis, involves the growth of blood and lymph vessels into the avascular cornea from the limbus and adversely affects transparency and vision. Alkali burn is one of the most common forms of ocular trauma that leads to CoNV. In this protocol, CoNV is experimentally induced using sodium hydroxide solution in a controlled manner to ensure reproducibility. The alkali burn model is useful for understanding the pathology of CoNV and can be extended to study angiogenesis in general because of the avascularity, transparency, and accessibility of the cornea. In this work, CoNV was analyzed by direct examination under a dissecting microscope and by immunostaining flat-mount corneas using anti-CD31 mAb. Lymphangiogenesis was detected on flat-mount corneas by immunostaining using anti-LYVE-1 mAb. Corneal edema was visualized and quantified using optical coherence tomography (OCT). In summary, this model will help to advance existing neovascularization assays and discover new treatment strategies for pathologic ocular and extraocular angiogenesis.

Comparison of Keratoconus Specific to Standard IOL Formulas in Patients With Keratoconus Undergoing Cataract Surgery.

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of multiple intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in eyes with keratoconus. METHODS: Eyes with stable keratoconus scheduled for cataract surgery with biometry measurements on the Lenstar LS900 (Haag-Streit) were included. Prediction errors were calculated using 11 different formulas, including two with keratoconus modifiers. Primary outcomes compared standard deviations, mean and median numerical errors, and percentage of eyes within diopter (D) ranges across all eyes with subgroup analysis according to anterior keratometric values. RESULTS: Sixty-eight eyes from 44 patients were identified. In eyes with keratometric values less than 50.00 D, prediction error standard deviations ranged from 0.680 to 0.857 D. Percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of target ranged from 57.89% to 73.68% with no statistical differences among formulas. In eyes with a keratometric value of more than 50.00 D, prediction error standard deviations ranged from 1.849 to 2.349 D and were not statistically different with heteroscedastic analysis; percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of target ranged from 0% to 18.18% with no statistical differences among formulas. Only keratoconus-specific formulas (Barrett-KC and Kane-KC) and the Wang-Koch axial length adjustment version of SRK/T resulted in median numerical errors not significantly different than 0, regardless of keratometric values. CONCLUSIONS: In keratoconic eyes, IOL formulas are less accurate than in normal eyes and result in hyperopic refractive outcomes that increase with steeper keratometric values. Using keratoconus-specific formulas and the Wang-Koch axial length adjustment version of SRK/T for axial lengths of 25.2 mm or greater improved IOL power prediction accuracy compared to other formulas. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(4):242-248.].

Outcomes of peripheral corneal relaxing incisions for residual astigmatism in patients after cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of peripheral corneal relaxing incisions (PCRIs) for correcting residual astigmatism in eyes after cataract surgery. SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Retrospectively, we reviewed all consecutive cases that had previous cataract surgery and subsequent PCRIs by 1 surgeon. The PCRI length was determined according to a nomogram based on age and manifest refractive astigmatism. Visual acuity and manifest refractive astigmatism before and after the PCRIs were compared. Vector analysis was performed, and net refractive changes along the incision meridian were calculated. RESULTS: Criteria were met by 111 eyes. After the PCRIs, mean uncorrected visual acuity was significantly improved, and the percentage of eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity of ≥20/20 increased significantly by 36%; the mean refractive astigmatism magnitude decreased significantly, and the percentages of eyes with refractive cylinder of ≤0.25 diopters (D) and ≤0.50 D increased significantly by 63% and 75%, respectively (all P < .05). The vector magnitude difference between pre- and post-operative refractive astigmatism was 0.88 ± 0.38 D. The postoperative refractive astigmatism had significantly smaller centroid and variance values than the preoperative refractive astigmatism ( P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: PCRIs are an effective approach for correcting low amounts of residual astigmatism in patients after cataract surgery.

Efficacy of segmented axial length and artificial intelligence approaches to intraocular lens power calculation in short eyes.

PURPOSE: In short eyes, to compare the predictive accuracy of newer intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas using traditional and segmented axial length (AL) measurements. SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas and East Valley Ophthalmology, Mesa, Arizona. DESIGN: Multi-center retrospective case series. METHODS: Measurements from an optical biometer were collected in eyes with AL <22 mm. IOL power calculations were performed with 15 formulas using 2 AL values: (1) machine-reported traditional AL (Td-AL) and (2) segmented AL calculated with the Cooke-modified AL nomogram (CMAL). 1 AL method and 7 formulas were selected for pairwise analysis of mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE). RESULTS: The study comprised 278 eyes. Compared with the Td-AL, the CMAL produced hyperopic shifts without differences in RMSAE. The ZEISS AI IOL Calculator (ZEISS AI), K6, Kane, Hill-RBF, Pearl-DGS, EVO, and Barrett Universal II (Barrett) formulas with Td-AL were compared pairwise. The ZEISS AI demonstrated smaller MAE and RMSAE than the Barrett, Pearl-DGS, and Kane. K6 had a smaller RMSAE than the Barrett formula. In 73 eyes with shallow anterior chamber depth, the ZEISS AI and Kane had a smaller RMSAE than the Barrett. CONCLUSIONS: ZEISS AI outperformed Barrett, Pearl-DGS, and Kane. The K6 formula outperformed some formulas in selected parameters. Across all formulas, use of a segmented AL did not improve refractive predictions.

Optical bench evaluation of the effect of pupil size in new generation monofocal intraocular lenses.

BACKGROUND: A new generation of enhanced monofocal IOLs has been introduced to slightly increase the depth of focus as compared to standard monofocal IOLs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of pupil size on the through-focus optical performance of three new enhanced monofocal IOLs, designed to improve the range of vision as compared to standard monofocal IOLs. METHODS: Optical bench testing in white light was performed for different pupils, using an average cornea eye. Distance image quality was evaluated using Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) measurements. Through-focus Visual Acuity (VA) was simulated from these measurements (sVA). Three enhanced monofocal IOLs (ICB00, ISOPure, and RayOne-EMV) and three standard monofocal IOLs: two aspheric (ZCB00 and SN60WF) and one spherical (AAB00) were included. RESULTS: The enhanced monofocal IOLs provided an improvement in the intermediate sVA as compared to standard monofocal IOLs. For ICB00, the improvement was independent of the pupil size, while for the ISOPure and RayOne-EMV, the intermediate sVA improved with increased pupil size. Similar to the spherical monofocal IOL, the ISOPure and RayOne-EMV showed a strong correlation between improvement in intermediate sVA and reduction of distance sVA and MTF, and increasing pupil size. ICB00 provided the same distance sVA as the aspheric monofocal IOLs and the lowest variability in MTF with pupil size. CONCLUSION: Optical bench results showed that the ISOPure and RayOne-EMV provide similar performance to a spherical monofocal IOL, with a strong pupil dependency for distance and intermediate vision. The other enhanced monofocal IOL, ICB00, provided a sustained improvement in simulated intermediate VA and maintained distance image quality comparable to that of the standard aspheric monofocal IOLs, even for larger pupils.

Surgeons need to know more about intraocular lens design for accurate power calculation.

Improvement in biometry and formulas has raised the bar for accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. However, when we look closely at the performance of a specific IOL model, we often find that the prediction error varies with the implant power. This phenomenon has no explanation other than that the optic design of the IOL has shifted over the power range, thereby disrupting the assumptions of the calculations. By this report, we call the industry to be more transparent and disclose the basic information about the IOL design that is important for accurate IOL power calculation. The relevant information concerns the refractive index, the central optic thickness, the anterior and posterior curvature radii, the toricity location, the spherical aberration, and haptic angulation. The goal is to predict possible shifts in principal planes or IOL position over the power range causing a refractive surprise if not corrected for.

Astigmatism Profile in a Large Series of Brazilian Patients.

PURPOSE: To assess anterior, posterior, and total corneal astigmatism in a large sample of Brazilian patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, all patients whose corneas were imaged with the Galilei G6 (Ziemer Ophthalmology) between January 2017 and February 2019 at HOPE Eye Hospital, in Recife, Brazil, were eligible to participate. Anterior, posterior, and total corneal astigmatism values were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 3,253 eyes of 1,919 patients. The mean magnitude of the anterior, posterior, and total corneal astigmatism was 1.50 ± 1.11, 0.34 ± 0.15, and 1.29 ± 0.98 diopters (D), respectively. Corneal astigmatism was greater than 0.50 D in the anterior cornea of 86.3% of eyes (2,807 eyes) and in the posterior cornea of 13.2% of eyes (429 eyes). Vertical alignment of the steepest corneal meridian was observed in the anterior cornea of 74.5% of eyes (2,423 eyes) and in the posterior cornea of 93.1% of eyes (3,029 eyes). The correlation between the astigmatism magnitude of the anterior and posterior cornea was strong when the steep anterior meridian was aligned vertically (r = 0.720; P < .001), and absent when it was aligned horizontally (r = 0.102; P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: Corneal astigmatism values in the Brazilian population were similar to those found in other ethnicities, suggesting that toric calculators, nomograms, coefficients of adjustment, and formulas that were developed based on astigmatism values of other populations may be used in Brazilian patients with comparable accuracy. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(1):56-60.].