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.

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.

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.].

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.

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.

Comparison of accuracy of a toric calculator with predicted vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of postoperative residual astigmatism prediction using the Barrett toric calculator with predicted vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA). SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: We included 602 eyes with monofocal nontoric intraocular lens implantation. Biometry and PCA were obtained from the IOLMaster 700. Anticipated postoperative refractive astigmatism was calculated with the Barrett toric calculator for predicted and measured PCA, and the astigmatism prediction errors (PEs) for each were calculated using vector analysis. The vector PE magnitudes and percentage of eyes within certain amounts of vector PEs were compared between 2 methods. RESULTS: Compared with the Barrett toric calculator with predicted PCA, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA produced significantly smaller mean vector PE (0.54 diopter [D] vs 0.57 D) and higher percentage of eyes with vector PE of ≤0.5 D (57.6% [347/602] vs 52.5% [316/602]) (both P < .05). In eyes with predicted residual astigmatism of ≥0.5 D, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA again yielded a significantly higher percentage of eyes with vector PE of ≤0.5 D (51.2% [226/441] vs 44.7% [197/441], P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of residual astigmatism prediction is improved using the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA rather than predicted PCA.

Astigmatism analysis and reporting of surgically induced astigmatism and prediction error.

PURPOSE: To provide a method for determining the vector that, when added to the preoperative astigmatism, results in no prediction error (PE) and to specify statistical methods for evaluating astigmatism and determining the 95% confidence convex polygon. SETTING: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case series. METHODS: An analysis of 3 clinical trials involving toric intraocular lenses was performed. 3 formulas were evaluated (generic vergence formula with zero surgically induced astigmatism, the Barrett toric formula, and the Holladay toric formula). Scalar and vector analyses were performed on each dataset with each formula and the results compared. Since the PE was not a Gaussian distribution, a 95% convex polygon was used to determine the spread of the data. RESULTS: The mean values for the vector absolute astigmatism PEs were not different for the 3 formulas and 3 datasets. The Barrett and Holladay toric calculators were statistically superior to the zero formula for 3 intervals (0.75, 1.0, and 1.25) in the high astigmatism dataset. CONCLUSIONS: Residual astigmatism and vector absolute astigmatism PE mean values and SDs are useful but require extremely large datasets to demonstrate a statistical difference, whereas examining percentages in 0.25 diopters (D) steps from 0.25 to 2.0 D reveals differences with far fewer cases using the McNemar test for a P value. Double-angle plots are especially useful to visualize astigmatic vector PEs, and a 95% confidence convex polygon should be used when distributions are not Gaussian.

Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery: Challenges, approaches, and outcomes.

In eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery, difficulties in accurately determining corneal refractive power and in predicting the effective lens position create challenges in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations. There are three categories of methods proposed based on the use of historical data acquired prior to the corneal refractive surgery. The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery postrefractive IOL calculator incorporates many commonly used methods. Accuracy of refractive prediction errors within ± 0.5 D is achieved in 0% to 85% of eyes with previous myopic LASIK/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), 38.1% to 71.9% of eyes with prior hyperopic LASIK/PRK, and 29% to 87.5% of eyes with previous radial keratotomy. IOLs with negative spherical aberration (SA) may reduce the positive corneal SA induced by myopic correction, and IOLs with zero SA best match corneal SA in eyes with prior hyperopic correction. Toric, extended-depth-of-focus, and multifocal IOLs may provide excellent outcomes in selected cases that meet certain corneal topographic criteria. Further advances are needed to improve the accuracy of IOL power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.

Results of the United States Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trial of the CustomFlex Artificial Iris.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of a custom-manufactured artificial iris device (CustomFlex Artificial Iris; HumanOptics AG) for the treatment of congenital and acquired iris defects. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, unmasked, nonrandomized, interventional clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with photophobia, sensitivity secondary to partial or complete congenital or acquired iris defects, or both. METHODS: Eyes were implanted from November 26, 2013, to December 1, 2017, with a custom, foldable artificial iris by 1 of 4 different surgical techniques. Patients were evaluated 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. At each examination, slit-lamp findings, intraocular pressure, implant position, subjective visual symptoms, and complications were recorded. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and endothelial cell density (ECD) were measured at 3, 6, or 12 months as additional safety evaluations. The 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) was used to assess health-related quality of life affected by vision. The Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale was used to assess cosmetic results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Photosensitivity, glare, visual symptoms, NEI VFQ-25 score, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale rating, prosthesis-related adverse events, intraocular lens (IOL)-related adverse events, and surgery-related adverse events 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: At the 12-month postoperative examination, a 59.7% reduction in marked to severe daytime light sensitivity (P < 0.0001), a 41.5% reduction in marked to severe nighttime light sensitivity (P < 0.0001), a 53.1% reduction in marked to severe daytime glare (P < 0.0001), and a 48.5% reduction in severe nighttime glare (P < 0.0001) were found. A 15.4-point improvement (P < 0.0001) in the NEI VFQ-25 total score was found, and 93.8% of patients reported an improvement in cosmesis as measured by the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale 12 months after surgery. No loss of CDVA of > 2 lines related to the device was found. Median ECD loss was 5.3% at 6 months after surgery and 7.2% at 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The artificial iris surpassed all key safety end points for adverse events related to the device, IOL, or implant surgery and met all key efficacy end points, including decreased light and glare sensitivity, improved health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with cosmesis. The device is safe and effective for the treatment of symptoms and an unacceptable cosmetic appearance created by congenital or acquired iris defects.

Outcome of astigmatism correction using femtosecond laser combined with cataract surgery: penetrating vs intrastromal incisions.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of penetrating vs intrastromal femtosecond laser corneal relaxing incisions (CRIs) in reducing corneal astigmatism during cataract surgery. SETTINGS: Baylor College of Medicine and Mercy Clinic Eye Specialists. DESIGN: Prospective randomized study. METHODS: 248 eyes from 248 patients were included. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo paired penetrating (8 mm optical zone [OZ] at 1 center and 9 mm OZ at the other) or intrastromal CRIs (8 mm OZ at both centers). The lengths of the CRIs were based on published nomograms but modified to take into account posterior corneal astigmatism. Vector analysis was performed, and net corneal changes along the CRI meridian were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed to assess factors contributing to net corneal changes. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 9% to 18% of eyes had corneal astigmatism of ≤0.5 diopters (D), and 76% to 93% of eyes had postoperative refractive astigmatism of ≤0.5 D ( P < .05). Both penetrating and intrastromal CRIs produced significant mean net corneal changes along the CRI meridian (-0.49 to -1.21 D), and 71% to 84% of eyes had postoperative astigmatism vector prediction errors of ≤0.50 D. The 8 mm penetrating CRIs induced greater net corneal changes but more eyes with overcorrection than did the intrastromal and 9 mm penetrating CRIs (all P < .05). Greater net corneal changes occurred with longer CRI length, higher preoperative corneal astigmatism magnitude, and preoperative against-the-rule corneal astigmatism. Nomograms based on anterior and total corneal astigmatism are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Both penetrating and intrastromal CRIs were effective in reducing corneal astigmatism during cataract surgery.