Secondary outcomes of lens and cataract surgery: More than just "best-corrected visual acuity".

Most studies evaluating cataract surgery focus on the primary outcome of early, central, best-corrected visual acuity. However, cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) design have other secondary visual outcomes as well as impacts on various ocular tissues, the visual function, and quality of life. Some of these aspects are more difficult to quantify, or are historically neglected, but might be extremely important to patients. One important development was the addition of blue-light filtering to IOL design. Whether these IOLs truly have the retinal protective qualities they were designed for is disputed, yet other inadvertent desirable and possibly detrimental influences are being examined. Risk of falls, driving accidents, and other injuries decrease following cataract surgery, especially in the elderly, the importance of which cannot be overemphasized. Cataract formation contributes to social isolation and decreases cognitive stimulation in the elderly population, while cataract extraction can reduce the risk of dementia and cognitive decline. Diffractive multifocal and extended depth-of-focus IOLs improve spectacle independence and patient reported outcomes, but positive and negative dysphotopsia may be persistent. Future directions such as using the IOL enabling clear spectacle-free vision at all distances, or intraoperative drug delivery systems show promising preliminary results. It seems inevitable that a higher focus on the secondary outcomes of surgery will increase. We believe that these aspects will become more and more relevant when considering new IOL designs and surgical techniques, a fact that will benefit both the patients and the surgeons.

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.

BACKGROUND: Good unaided distance visual acuity (VA) is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the visual effects of multifocal IOLs in comparison with the current standard treatment of monofocal lens implantation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. We also considered trials comparing multifocal IOLs with "monovision" whereby one eye is corrected for distance vision and one eye corrected for near vision. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We found 20 eligible trials that enrolled 2230 people with data available on 2061 people (3194 eyes). These trials were conducted in Europe (13), China (three), USA (one), Middle East (one), India (one) and one multicentre study in Europe and the USA. Most of these trials compared multifocal with monofocal lenses; two trials compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask participants and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias.There was moderate-certainty evidence that the distance acuity achieved with multifocal lenses was not different to that achieved with monofocal lenses (unaided VA worse than 6/6: pooled RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.03; eyes = 682; studies = 8). People receiving multifocal lenses may achieve better near vision (RR for unaided near VA worse than J3/J4 was 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.58; eyes = 782; studies = 8). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%) although all included studies favoured multifocal lenses with respect to this outcome.People receiving multifocal lenses may be less spectacle dependent (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; eyes = 1000; studies = 10). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias and evidence of publication bias (skewed funnel plot). There was also high heterogeneity (I2 = 67%) but all studies favoured multifocal lenses. We did not additionally downgrade for this.Adverse subjective visual phenomena were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with a multifocal IOL compared with monofocals (RR for glare 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93; eyes = 544; studies = 7, low-certainty evidence and RR for haloes 3.58, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.46; eyes = 662; studies = 7; moderate-certainty evidence).Two studies compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was no evidence for any important differences in distance VA between the groups (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; eyes = 186; studies = 1), unaided intermediate VA (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; eyes = 181; studies = 1) and unaided near VA (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; eyes = 186; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. People receiving multifocal lenses were less likely to be spectacle dependent (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53; eyes = 262; studies = 2) but more likely to report problems with glare (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.73; eyes = 187; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. In one study, the investigators noted that more people in the multifocal group underwent IOL exchange in the first year after surgery (6 participants with multifocal vs 0 participants with monovision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs although there is uncertainty as to the size of the effect. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs, such as glare and haloes, will vary between people. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.

[Evaluation of quality of life of patients after phacoemulsification with accommodating lens implantation]. / Ocena jakosci zycia pacjentów po fakoemulsyfikacji z wszczepieniem akomodacyjnej soczewki wewnatrzgalkowej.

INTRODUCTION: Intraocular lens implantation is an important part of cataract surgery, as it has a significant influence on the final result. Accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) are the latest solution for the lack of accommodation in pseudophakic eyes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of life of patients who underwent cataract surgery with accommodating IOL implantation and to compare the data with results of patients after standard monofocal IOL implantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 20 patients (40 eyes), aged from 48 to 73 years old, who underwent phacoemulsification through a 2.75 mm clear corneal incision followed by the implantation of an accommodating IOL Crystalens HD (Bausch & Lomb, USA). The control group consisted of 20 patients (40 eyes), aged from 63 to 83 years old, who underwent phacoemulsification through a 2.75 mm clear corneal incision followed by the implantation of a standard monofocal single-piece acrylic intraocular lens AcrySof (Alcon, USA). All enrolled patients had no coexisting ocular diseases which could influence the final visual acuity. All surgeries were uneventful. At one month postoperatively, the patients were requested to answer 36 questions included in the questionnaire in order to evaluate the quality of visual function. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the quality of life in both groups after cataract surgery. The study group tended to assess their own eyesight higher than the control group. Patients from the study group use spectacle correction for a lower number of activities, they find it easier to use fine motor skills when performing activities without spectacle correction in comparison with patients from the control group. Patients from the study group use spectacle correction for reading significantly less frequently, they also find it easier to read the normal size and small print without spectacle correction, in comparison with patients from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with accommodating IOLs self-evaluate their own eyesight highly, use spectacle correction for a lower number of activities and find it significantly easier to perform precise activities without spectacle correction, in comparison with patients after the standard monofocal intraocular lens implantation.

Parenting stress in the infant aphakia treatment study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate parenting stress following infants' cataract extraction surgery, and to determine if levels of stress differ between 2 treatments for unilateral congenital cataract in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: At surgery, an intraocular lens (IOL) was implanted or children were left aphakic, treated with contact lens (CL). Stress measures were administered 3 months after surgery and at the first visit after the visual acuity (VA) assessment done at 12 months of age. RESULTS: Caregivers in the IOL group reported higher levels of stress than those in the CL group 3 months after surgery, but there were no group differences in stress scores at the post-VA assessment. Stress scores did not change differentially for participants assigned to IOL versus CL treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment assignment did not have a significant impact on caregiver stress during infancy or on the change in stress during the child's first 2 years of life.

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.

BACKGROUND: Good unaided distance visual acuity is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of multifocal IOLs, including effects on visual acuity, subjective visual satisfaction, spectacle dependence, glare and contrast sensitivity, compared to standard monofocal lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 6 March 2012. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted investigators of included studies and manufacturers of multifocal IOLs for information about additional published and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors collected data and assessed trial quality. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a random-effects model, otherwise we tabulated data. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen completed trials (1608 participants) and two ongoing trials were identified. All included trials compared multifocal and monofocal lenses but there was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask patients and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias. There was moderate quality evidence that similar distance acuity is achieved with both types of lenses (pooled risk ratio (RR) for unaided visual acuity worse than 6/6: 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.05). There was also evidence that people with multifocal lenses had better near vision but methodological and statistical heterogeneity meant that we did not calculate a pooled estimate for effect on near vision. Total freedom from use of glasses was achieved more frequently with multifocal than monofocal IOLs. Adverse subjective visual phenomena, particularly haloes, or rings around lights, were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with the multifocal IOL and there was evidence of reduced contrast sensitivity with the multifocal lenses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs will vary between patients. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.

[Aniridia intraocular lenses in eyes with traumatic iris defects]. / Aniridie-Intraokularlinsen bei Augen mit traumatischen Irisdefekten.

BACKGROUND: Globe injuries frequently are the cause of permanent loss of visual function. Especially ruptures of the globe have a 50 times lower chance of achieving a final visual acuity better than 20/200 as compared to contusions of the globe. Besides injury to the retina and choroids, injury of the iris-lens diaphragm plays an important role for visual rehabilitation (10% iris defects and 1% aniridia after blunt trauma). Against this background the surgical results after implantation of aniridia intraocular lenses were investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven patients (41.9+/-19.6 years of age) after globe injury (three ruptures of the globe, eight penetrating injuries with trauma of the iris) were implanted with an aniridia IOL. RESULTS: The implantation of an aniridia IOL was performed on average 1.0+/-0.6 years (range: 0.4-2.3 years) after the primary injury. In ten eyes an aniridia IOL model HMK ANI 2 (Ophtec/Polytech) was implanted and in one eye an aniridia IOL model 67 (Morcher). Most patients were very satisfied with the results achieved (average corrected visual acuity 0.48; 0.05-1.0). Of the operated eyes, 63% reached a visual acuity > or = 0.4. All patients noticed a significant reduction in glare disability as compared to the preoperative condition. The incidence of secondary glaucoma remained unchanged after the secondary implantation. One patient demonstrated retinal detachment 3 months after receiving the secondary implant, which was successfully treated with vitrectomy and gas tamponade. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of aniridia IOLs seems to be a beneficial therapeutic option in post-traumatic eyes with partial or complete aniridia and aphakia with good visual recovery. During the postoperative follow-up special attention must be paid to sufficient regulation of intraocular pressure and to the retinal situation.

[Satisfaction of cataract patients]. / Uber die Zufriedenheit von Katarakt-Patienten.

BACKGROUND: Most of the presentations concerning quality assurance following cataract surgery are based upon objective data, as it should be. But the success of an eye-clinic is not limited by such objective data, but on the contentment of the patients and the local colleagues, who direct the patients. Our aim in the following study is to find out, if there is a correlation between objective data and the contentment of cataract-patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 101 non-selected patients were asked about their contentment following cataract surgery and lens implantation. They were asked twice; first immediately after surgery and second two months after surgery. The subjective data of the patients were compared with objective data. RESULTS: 99% of the patients were content with the surgery, but only 88% were content with their visual acuity. There was no correlation between contentment of the patients and visual acuity. 13% of the patients reached a vision below 0.2. All but one said to have a good or moderate vision. 16% claimed to have poor or very poor vision, they all had a vision between 0.2 and 1.0. CONCLUSIONS: The ophthalmic surgeon must not be satisfied by his own good surgical results. In addition, he has to take care of the contentment of his patients. But it is even more dangerous, if the surgeon is proud because of his many content patients. Even if the patients are satisfied, he has to take care, if he really deserves the thanks of them.

Fear of a cataract operation in aged persons.

Self-reports of fear from 100 patients (25 men and 75 women 71 to 76 years old) having two cataract operations were investigated. 33% of the patients reported having fear and 32% felt tension about the operation performed on the first eye. Women feared the operation significantly more than men. Fears were significantly associated with hypochondriasis, hysteria, and hypomania (unadjusted) as indicated by correlations with scores on the Mini-Mult MMPI. The cataract operation restored sufficient visual acuity for reading (minimum E-test value 0.40 or 1.8-cm high letters at a distance of 6 meters) to 79% of the subjects. The experience of a good operation result on the first eye significantly reduced the fear of the cataract operation on the second eye and at the same time the fear of becoming blind. Other factors reducing fear included positive experiences of a safe and painless cataract operation.