Suboptimal visual outcome after femto-LASIK ablation in a high myopic patient.

A 28-year-old nurse had an aberration-free femto-laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) performed for her myopia of -6.25 -0.50 × 096 and -6.75 -0.50 × 175 in the right and left eye, respectively. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) preoperatively was 20/16. Preoperatively, there were no abnormalities on Scheimpflug imaging, and a pachymetry of 585 µm was measured in both eyes. Flap thickness was 115 µm. The patient was quite nervous during the surgery. Since the surgery, her uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and CDVA are suboptimal at 20/30 and 20/20 in the right eye, and 20/20 and 20/16 in the left eye. 3 months postoperatively, there is a stable manifest refraction of +0.25 -1.25 × 030 and +0.25 -0.00 × 0. The keratometric astigmatism in the Scheimpflug imaging is 1.2 diopter (D) × 114 and 0.4 D × 78 in the right and left eyes, respectively (FIgures 1 and 2). Thinnest pachymetry is 505 µm and 464 µm in the right and left eye, respectively. Her wavefront analysis shows refraction in a 6 mm zone of -0.99 -1.22 × 32 and -0.91 -0.36 × 136. The cycloplegic refraction is 1.25 -1.00 × 023 and +1.00 -0.25 × 006 (Figures 3 and 4). What is the cause of the suboptimal visual outcome in this case? What would be your treatment strategy to improve visual outcome?

Pupil size measurements with a multifunctional aberrometer/coherence interferometer/tomographer and two infrared based pupillometers.

PURPOSE: To compare precision of pupil size measurements of a multifunctional device (Pentacam AXL Wave (OCULUS; abbreviated as Pentacam) and two infrared based pupillometers (PupilX (Albomed), Colvard (Oasis medical)) and to compare repeatability of Pentacam and PupilX. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative trial. METHODS: Pupil diameter of healthy eyes was measured with Colvard once and Pentacam without (WO) and with glare (WG), PupilX in 0, 1 and 16 lux three times each. In a second series measurements with Pentacam WO and PupilX in 0.06 and 0.12 lux were assessed. RESULTS: 36 eyes of participants aged 21-63 years were included. Mean pupil diameter was 6.05 mm with Colvard, 5.79 mm (1st series), 5.50 mm (2nd series) with Pentacam WO, 3.42 mm WG, 7.26 mm PupilX in 0, 4.67 mm 1, 3.66 mm 16, 6.82 mm in 0.06 and 6.39 mm in 0.12 lux. Measurements with Pentacam WO were significantly different to PupilX in 0, 0.06, 0.12 and 1 lux (all p<0.001), but not to Colvard (p=0.086). Pupil size measured with Pentacam WG and PupilX in 16 lux was not significantly different (p=0.647). Consecutive measurements with Pentacam WO and WG had mean standard deviation of 0.23 and 0.20 mm respectively and with PupilX 0.11 in 0, 0.24 1 and 0.20 mm in 16 lux. CONCLUSIONS: Pentacam provided good assessment of pupil size, but was not equivalent to PupilX in low lighting conditions. Repeatability was more favourable for Pentacam.

IOL Calculation using the ESCRS Online Calculator in Pediatric Eyes Undergoing Lens Extraction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ESCRS online calculator for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in children undergoing lens extraction and primary IOL implantation. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive case series. METHODS: We included eyes that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation (Acrysof SN60AT, Alcon, Fort Worth, Tx, USA) due to congenital or juvenile cataract. We compared the mean prediction error (MPE), mean and median absolute prediction error (MAE, MedAE) of formulas provided by the recently introduced online calculator provided by the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) to the SRK/T formula, as well as the number of eyes within ±0.5, ±1.0, ±2.0 diopters (D) of target refraction. Postoperative spherical equivalent was measured by retinoscopy 4 to 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Sixty eyes from forty-seven patients with a mean age of 6.5 years ± 3.2 met the inclusion criteria. Mean axial length was 22.27mm ± 1.19. Mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was -0.25 D ± 3.78 and mean postoperative SE was 0.69 D ± 1.53. The MedAE was lowest in the SRK/T formula (0.56 D, ± 1.03) performed significantly better (p = 0.037) than Hoffer QST and Kane, followed by BUII (0.64D, ± 0.92), Pearl DGS (0.65D, ± 0.94), EVO (0.69D, ± 0.94), Hoffer QST (0.75D, ± 0.99), and Kane (0.78D, ± 0.99). All of those were significantly above zero (p < 0.001). Forty-one eyes received an intraoperative optic capture (68%). When excluding eyes that did not receive intraoperative optic capture (n=19; 32%) the MedAE was shown to be lower. CONCLUSION: Using modern IOL calculation formulas provided by the ESCRS calculator provides good refractive predictability and compares for most of the formulas to the results with SRK/T. Additionally the formulas seem to anticipate the postoperative refraction better for eyes that receive a posterior optic capture.

Visual Outcomes and Safety of a Refractive Corneal Inlay for Presbyopia: One-Year Results.

PURPOSE: To determine the visual outcomes and safety 12 months after implantation of the Presbia Flexivue Microlens refractive corneal inlay. METHODS: In this prospective, non-randomized trial, 22 patients with a mean age of 52.54 ± 2.86 years were implanted with the Flexivue Microlens refractive corneal inlay in the non-dominant eye at the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. Corrected near, intermediate, and distance (CNVA, CIVA, and CDVA) visual acuity and uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance (UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA) visual acuity, manifest refraction, subjective quality of vision, endothelial cell count, and contrast sensitivity were measured 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: For binocular CDVA, no patient lost two or more lines and 30% lost only one line at the 12-month visit. In the eye that had surgery, 85% of the patients lost two or more lines of UDVA, which was statistically significant. Sixty-five percent of the patients gained one or more lines in binocular UIVA, and 80% achieved 20/40 or better in DCIVA. UNVA showed a statistically significant improvement, with 90% of the patients achieving 20/40 or better 12 months after implantation. A total of 85% gained two or more lines in binocular UNVA. CONCLUSIONS: This refractive corneal inlay showed an improvement in binocular UNVA, UIVA, CNVA, and CIVA, whereas binocular CDVA and UDVA were not statistically affected. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(1):e1-e9.].

Unilateral intraindividual comparison and bilateral performance of a monofocal spherical and diffractive extended depth of field intraocular lens mix-and-match approach.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the intraindividual visual performance of a spherical and extended depth of field (EDOF) IOL used in a mix-and-match approach. METHODS: Single centre (tertiary care centre), retrospective consecutive case series. Included patients had uneventful cataract surgery with implantation of a spherical monofocal IOL (CT Spheris 204) in the dominant eye and a diffractive EDOF IOL (AT LARA 829) in the non-dominant eye. Monocular and binocular defocus curves and visual acuity at various distances were assessed. In addition, binocular reading speed, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction using QOV, Catquest 9SF, and glare/halo questionnaires are reported. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients (58 eyes) were included. We observed significant intra-individual differences for monocular DCIVA, DCNVA, UIVA, and UNVA. There were no differences in monocular BCDVA or UDVA. The monocular defocus curves for the two IOLs significantly differed at defocus steps between -1.0 and -3.5 D. 93.10% of patients reported they would opt for the same combination of IOLs. CONCLUSION: Excellent uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity was demonstrated in both groups. The mix-and-match approach described in this study yielded good intermediate vision and improved near vision with high-patient satisfaction.

Vehicle Headlight Halo Simulation of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses.

Purpose: This optical bench study was designed to evaluate and compare the halos generated by presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (PCIOLs) and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), with or without lens decentration, using an optical bench to simulate the headlight of a distant vehicle in mesopic conditions. Methods: Halos generated by six nondiffractive and 10 diffractive IOLs with different dioptric add powers were evaluated using a high dynamic range bench system. Halo intensities were compared by assessing the area under the measured intensity profile curve to compute the relative halo magnitude (RHM). Results: Nondiffractive PCIOLs produced smaller and less intense bench halo images than diffractive ones. RHM measurements ranged from 964 to 1896. Monofocal IOLs produced lower RHM values, whereas diffractive PCIOLs generated higher ones. When decentered by 0.5 mm with respect to the system aperture, more obviously asymmetric halo image profiles were observed in diffractive compared with nondiffractive PCIOLs. Conclusions: Simulated bench halos of nondiffractive PCIOLs are smaller and less intense than those of diffractive PCIOLs. Additional clinical studies assessing standardized patient-reported outcomes measures are required to correlate these bench results with patient satisfaction. Translational Relevance: This study contrasts the design-related simulated bench halos of nondiffractive and diffractive PCIOLs, aiming to elucidate their impact on halo perception.

Five-year follow-up of a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole for correction of myopia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intermediate and long-term visual outcomes and safety of a phakic intraocular posterior chamber lens with a central hole (ICL V4c) for myopic eyes. METHODS: Retrospective, consecutive case study of patients that uneventfully received a ICL V4c for myopia correction, with a 5-year postoperative follow-up. Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. RESULTS: From 241 eyes that underwent ICL implantation, we included 45 eyes with a mean age at surgery of 33 years ± 6 (18-48 years), with a 5 years follow-up. CDVA improved from 0.05logMAR ± 0.15 CDVA preoperatively to - 0.00 ± 0,07 at 5 years and did not change significantly from 3 to 5 years' time (p = 0.266). The mean spherical equivalent (SE) improved from -10.13D ± 3.39 to - 0.45D ± 0.69. The change in endothelial cell count showed a mean decrease of 1.9% per year throughout the follow-up. Safety and efficacy index were 1.16 and 0.78, respectively. Cataract formation was seen in 2 of 241 eyes (0.8%), but in none of the 45 eyes that finished the 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show a good intermediate and long-term stability, efficiency, and safety of ICL V4c phakic lenses in myopic eyes comparable to other known literature.

Accuracy of using the axial length of the fellow eye for IOL calculation in retinal detachment eyes undergoing silicone oil removal.

PURPOSE: Evaluate whether the axial length of the fellow eye can be used to calculate the intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes with retinal detachment. DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive case series. METHODS: Our study was conducted at the Goethe University and included patients who underwent silicone oil (SO) removal combined with phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. Preoperative examinations included biometry (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss). We measured axial length (AL) of operated eye (OE) or fellow eye (FE) and compared mean prediction error and mean and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) using four formulas and AL of the OE (Barrett Universal II (BUII)-OE). Additionally, we compared the number of eyes within ±0.50, ±1.00 and ±2.00 dioptre (D) from target refraction. RESULTS: In total, 77 eyes of 77 patients met our inclusion criteria. MedAE was lowest for the BUII-OE (0.42 D) compared with Kane-FE (1.08 D), BUII-FE (1.02 D) and Radial Basis Function 3.0 (RBF3.0)-FE (1.03 D). This was highly significant (p<0.001). The same accounts for the number of eyes within ±0.50 D of the target refraction with the BUII-OE (44 eyes, 57%) outperforming the RBF3.0-FE (20 eyes, 25.9%), Kane-FE and BUII-FE formula (21 eyes, 27.2%) each. CONCLUSION: Our results show a statistically and clinically highly relevant reduction of IOL power predictability when using the AL of the FE for IOL calculation. Using the AL of the SO filled eye after initial vitrectomy results in significantly better postoperative refractive results. A two-step procedure using the AL of the OE after reattachment of the retina is highly recommended.

New Nitinol-based Thermomechanically Adjustable IOL Technology.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of new adjustable intraocular lens (IOL) technology. METHODS: The foldable adjustable IOL consists of a nitinol mechanism placed in a haptic-optic cradle. Heating actuators on the nitinol mechanism with a continuous green laser achieve controlled movement of the mechanism and optic. Activation occurs in controlled steps: rotation in 1-degree steps over 360 degrees, and anterior posterior movement in 0.25-diopter (D) steps with a range of +1.50 D. The IOL was tested in vitro and in vivo in a rabbit eye. Foldability and unfolding were demonstrated through a 2.6-mm cartridge. RESULTS: The adjustable lens mechanism was successfully tested in vitro and in vivo. Activation resulted in a change in optic position relative to the haptics and the capsular bag. Activation of the lever and ratchet mechanism showed radial advancement of the IOL clockwise and counterclockwise. In vivo rotatory movement was achieved after activation by the argon laser at 1 week after implantation. Anterior to posterior movement was accomplished by activating the circular spring actuator mechanism in the laboratory model. Uneventful folding and unfolding were performed. CONCLUSIONS: A new adjustable IOL with a mechanism that responds in measured steps had been shown to move as planned after activation by argon laser. This was successful in the laboratory in both radial and anterior posterior movement. The radial movement was also proven in vivo in an animal model. Further refinement of the prototype is currently being undertaken. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(10):662-667.].

Effect of the iridocorneal angle size on the diurnal pressure profile in a glaucoma suspect cohort and patients with glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the iridocorneal angle size (ICAS) on the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with suspected glaucoma (SG). METHOD: Patients with any eye-pressure lowering medication or previous ocular surgery were excluded. In a retrospective study set, diurnal IOP profiles of 120 patients (205 eyes) within a 48-h period were analysed by regression analysis. Of those eyes, 44 were diagnosed to have glaucoma. The remaining eyes were used as healthy control group (HCG). RESULTS: The overall mean IOP was 15.63 mmHg ± 2.72 mmHg and mean ICAS was 23.92° ± 4.74°. In the glaucoma cohort, mean IOP was 18.77 ± 1.86 mmHg and mean ICAS was 25.02° ± 4.96°. In the HCG, mean IOP was 14.77 ± 2.25 mmHg and mean ICAS was 23.62° ± 4.64°. In the total cohort, as well as in the subgroups (HCG or glaucoma), regression analysis showed no significant impact even of the minimum ICAS, which was larger than 10°, on average (P = 0.89), maximum (P = 0.88), and range of IOP (P = 0.49) within 48 h. The difference between glaucoma cohort and HCG cohort was significant in terms of IOP (P < 0.001), but not for minimum ICAS (P = 0.07). Chi-square test showed no increase in prevalence of IOP peaks of  > 21 mmHg within 48 h in eyes with an angle between 10° and 20° (P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: An ICAS of larger than 10° in HCG or glaucoma patients with an open-angle does not influence the minimum, average, maximum or range of IOP. Additionally, an angle size larger than 10° does not allow the prediction of IOP changes in these two cohorts.

Prospective evaluation of the ESCRS online calculator for calculation of a multifocal intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a recently introduced ESCRS online calculator for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of a multifocal IOL in refractive lens exchange and cataract surgery in a prospective setting. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive case series. METHODS: Eyes that received lens extraction and multifocal IOL implantation were included. The mean prediction error, mean absolute error, and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) provided by the ESCRS online calculator were compared, as were the number of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D), ±1.0 D, ±2.0 D of target refraction. The SRK/T formula was also included for comparison. Postoperative spherical equivalent was measured at 3 months. 1 eye per patient was included. RESULTS: 88 eyes from 88 patients with a mean age of 62 ± 9.5 years were included. The MedAE was low for all formulas and ranged from 0.26 D (Kane), Hill-RBF (0.27 D), Hoffer Q Savini/Taroni (Hoffer QST) (0.27 D), Barrett Universal II (BUII) (0.28 D), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (0.29 D), Cooke K6 (0.27 D), 0.30 D (Postoperative spherical Equivalent prediction using Artificial intelligence and Linear algorithms, by Debellemaniére, Gatinel, and Saad [Pearl DGS]) to 0.31 D (SRK/T). No statistically significant difference was found ( P = .627). Considering the number of eyes within ±0.5 D of the calculated refraction the best performing was again the Hill-RBF (84%, 74 eyes), again followed by Kane (71, 81%), EVO, Pearl DGS, Hoffer QST, BUII (each 80%, 70 eyes), Cooke K6 (78%, 69 eyes), and SRK/T (74%). Again, no statistically significant difference was found ( P = .39). CONCLUSIONS: Using a recently introduced ESCRS online IOL calculator in multifocal IOLs leds to a high number of eyes reaching target refraction and low prediction errors. All formulas performed similarly well. Hill-RBF showed the highest number of eyes within ±0.5 D, but no significance was found.