Quantitative assessment of photic phenomena in the presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens.

This was a prospective study to evaluate the feasibility of the photic phenomena test (PPT) for quantifying glare, halo, and starburst. We compared two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs), the Symfony IOL and the PanOptix IOL, as well as the monofocal Clareon IOL in 111 IOL-implanted eyes of 111 patients who underwent the PPT 1 month postoperatively. The reproducibility of photic phenomena with the PPT was assessed in 39 multifocal IOL-implanted eyes of 20 patients and among the examiners. Patients with ocular diseases, except for refractive errors, were excluded. The mean values of the groups were evaluated. Bland-Altman plots were used to analyze statistical data (Easy R version 1.37; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The PPT reproducibility assessment revealed no fixed bias or regressive significance. Reproducibility was confirmed. The glare size did not differ significantly between the Symfony, PanOptix, and Clareon groups. The halo size was significantly larger in the Symfony group (p < 0.01) than in the PanOptix group. The halo intensity was significantly brighter in the PanOptix group (p < 0.01) than in the Symfony group. In contrast, no halos were perceived in the Clareon group. The starburst size or intensity did not differ significantly between the Symfony, PanOptix, and Clareon groups. We identified the photic phenomenon related to various IOLs.

[Characteristics and management of Uveitis-Glaucoma-Hyphema syndrome]. / Caractéristiques et prise en charge du syndrome Uvéite-Glaucome-Hyphéma.

INTRODUCTION: Uveitis-Glaucoma-Hyphema syndrome (UGH) is caused by mechanical chafing of anterior segment structures by an intraocular lens, especially an anterior chamber lens. The objective of this study was to characterise the clinical course and risk factors of UGH syndrome at a time when posterior chamber implantation is the gold standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 30 cases of UGH syndrome managed between January 2014 and September 2018. Data from the initial clinical examination, the type of implant involved and the clinical management were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty eyes of 28 patients were included. Intra ocular lenses were iris-sutured (15/30, 50 %), in the bag (6/30, 20 %), scleral-fixated (4/30, 13.3 %), in the ciliary sulcus (3/30,10 %) or "in and out" (2/30, 6.7 %). Initial management was medical (18 eyes) or surgical (12 eyes). Surgical procedures were explantation (n=4), IOL repositioning (n=7) or trabeculectomy (n=1). Recurrences occurred with medical treatment (9/18), but not in the surgical group (p=0.02). Ocular hypertension became chronic in 19 cases out of 30 (63.3 %). CONCLUSION: UGH syndrome can be caused by any type of pseudophakic lens. An intraocular lens in the bag should not rule out the diagnosis. Despite the decreasing popularity of anterior chamber intraocular lens implantation, UGH syndrome remains a current condition and must be recognised in order to adapt therapeutic management.

The efficacy of accommodative versus monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether accommodative intraocular lenses (AC-IOLs) are superior for cataract patients compared with monofocal IOLs (MF-IOLs). METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched through in August 2018 for AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract patients. Studies were pooled under either fixed-effects model or random-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standard mean difference (SMD) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was chosen as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, contrast sensitivity, and spectacle independence. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, involving a total of 1764 eyes, were included. Our results revealed that AC-IOLs improved DCNVA (SMD = -1.84, 95% CI = -2.56 to -1.11) and were associated with significantly greater anterior lens shift than MF-IOLs (WMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.23). Furthermore, spectacle independence was significantly better with AC-IOLs than with MF-IOLs (RR = 3.07, 95% CI = 1.06-8.89). However, there was no significant difference in CDVA and contrast sensitivity between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that AC-IOLs can provide cataract patients with DCNVA and result in more high levels of spectacle independence than MF-IOLs. Further studies with larger data set and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.

[Assessment of astigmatism associated with the iris-fixated ARTISAN aphakia implant: Anterior fixation versus posterior fixation, study of postoperative follow-up at one year]. / Évaluation de l'astigmatisme associé à l'implant ARTISAN Aphakia fixé à l'iris en face antérieure versus face postérieure : étude du suivi postopératoire sur un an.

PURPOSE: The goal of our retrospective, single-center study of a case series was to compare the total, corneal, and internal astigmatism, and the visual acuity at one year after combined or stand-alone surgery consisting of iris fixation of an iris-claw intraocular lens (ARTISAN aphakia) in aphakic patients, according to whether the lens was fixated to the anterior (n=21) or posterior (n=51) surface of the iris. RESULTS: We did not find a significant difference between these two types of fixation for any of the studied variables. The surgically induced astigmatism was 1.67 D at 176° in group A versus 1.19 D at 11° in group P. CONCLUSION: Although this surgery creates additional corneal astigmatism, it has not been proven that it differs depending on the type of fixation of the iris-claw. If we adhere to the notion that the posterior fixated iris-claw decreases the risk of endothelial decompensation in case the implant becomes disenclavated, then reverse iris fixation of the iris-claw makes sense.

Toric intraocular lens outcomes with a new protocol for IOL selection and implantation.

INTRODUCTION: The published literature on toric intraocular lenses (IOL) reports postoperative refractive cylinder less than or equal to 0.5 D in anywhere from 25% to 100% of implantations with both the Acrysof® Toric and Tecnis® Toric IOL, depending upon the article. However, the majority of articles tend to cite rates between 70% and 80%. PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate my personal outcomes for both models of toric IOL, in terms of one-month postoperative refractive cylinder, after implementation of new methods of IOL selection, calculation and implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new protocol included measurement of centroid surgically induced astigmatism by vector analysis; calculations using only the Barrett toric calculator, for which the keratometry values were obtained by optical biometry, while the keratometric axes were chosen by visual inspection of the axial topographic map; preoperative marking with the toriCAM cell phone appliance; and corneal incisions performed either manually or with a femtosecond laser. A prospective, observational study was conducted of all consecutive monofocal toric IOL implantations from September 2016 through April 2017. One-month postoperative refractive cylinder was recorded for each eye. RESULTS: Seventy eyes were implanted with monofocal toric IOL, 31 Acrysof® Toric and 39 Tecnis® Toric. Mean postoperative refractive cylinder was 0.48 D (0.00-1.50) for the Acrysof® Toric group and 0.46 D (0.00-1.00) for the Tecnis® Toric group. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative refractive cylinder between IOL models or methods of incision. The percentage of eyes achieving postoperative refractive cylinder ≤0.50 D ("success") was 77% for the Acrysof® Toric group (82% for laser-assisted and 75% for manual) and 72% for the Tecnis® Toric group (80% for laser-assisted and 69% for manual). CONCLUSION: The implementation of the new protocol resulted in an overall surgical success rate of 77% for Acrysof® Toric IOL and 72% for Tecnis® Toric IOL (P=0.7702). Femtosecond laser-assisted surgery resulted in higher success rates than manual surgery (82% vs. 75% for Acrysof® Toric and 80% vs. 69% for Tecnis® Toric), but these differences were not statistically significant (Acrysof® Toric P=0.7336; Tecnis® Toric P=0.8862).

Scleral Fixation of Intraocular Lens with Ab Interno Technique.

INTRODUCTION: Implantation of scleral fixation intraocular lens for the surgical management of aphakia cases without capsular support is a safe procedure. METHODS: Prospective study was carried out at Lumbini Eye Institute, Bhairahawa. A total of 32 patients underwent scleral fixation intraocular lens implantation within a period of two years from February 2014 to February 2016. RESULTS: The age range was from 15 to 79 years; mean age was 47.56 ± 20.16 SD. Among them 14 (43.75%) were male and 18 (56.25%) were female. The follow-up lasted for 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: SFIOL for the surgical management of aphakia in the absence of capsular support is a safe procedure. The long-term follow-up is needed for an accurate evaluation of outcomes.

[Visual quality comparison after multifocal toric intraocular lens or monofocal toric intraocular lens implantation].

Objective: To compare visual quality and satisfaction after multifocal toric intraocular lens (Acrysof IQ Restor toric, ART) and monofocal toric intraocular lens implantation in patients. Methods: It was a prospective nonrandomized Phase Ⅲ clinical trial. Patients with age-related cataract and corneal astigmatism were enrolled and accepted phacoemulsification combined with implantation of intraocular lens (IOL) in Henan Provincial Eye Hospital during March 2013 to December 2014. Fifty-six cases were divided into two groups according to which IOL they chose. ART group included 28 cases (3l eyes) aged from 41.0 to 72.0 years, with an average age of 61.5 years; toric group included 28 cases (33 eyes) aged from 42.0 to 75.0 years, with an average age of 63.5 years. Three months postoperatively, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 5, 70, 40 cm, corrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities, defocus curve, residual refractive astigmatism, rotational stability of the IOL, contrast sensitivity and patientsatisfaction were evaluated. All data were processed by statistic package deal SPSS 16.0. Postoperative visual acuity, residual astigmatism, IOL axial rotation and contrast sensitivity were compared by independent samples t test; preoperative and postoperative corneal astigmatism were compared by paired t-test; spectacle independency and halo incidence were processed by χ(2) test; visual satisfaction score was analyzed by Mann-Whitney test. Results: At 3 months postoperatively, in ART group, UDVA was (0.04±0.05), UIVA was (0.24±0.15), UNVA was (0.20±0.24). While in Toric group, UDVA was (0.06±0.04), UIVA was (0.30±0.13), UNVA was (0.47±0.21). There was no significant difference in UDVA between two groups(t=0.79, P=0.433). But in ART group, UIVA and UNVA were markedly better than those in Toric group(t=2.74, P=0.008; t=3.45, P<0.01). Depth of focus was 5.50 D (+2.00--3.50 D) in the ART group and 2.50 D (+1.00--1.50 D) in the Toric group. Average postoperative residual astigmatism was (-0.45±0.41)D in ART group and (-0.41±0.32)D in the Toric group. There was no significant difference between two groups (t=1.05, P=0.304). Average IOL rotation test was (2.95°±1.34°) in the ART group and (2.75°±1.64°) in the Toric group. There was no significant difference between two groups (t=0.67, P=0.452). Spectacle independency was achieved by 85.7% of patients in the ART group and 32.1% in the Toric group. There was no signifcant difference in distant visual satisfaction scores between the two groups(Z=0.71, P>0.05), while the intermediate and near visual satisfaction scores were significantly different(Z=2.27, P<0.05; Z=2.60, P<0.05) Conclusions: Both of the ART IOL and toric IOL can correct patients astigmatism. Implantation of ART IOL in patients with cataract and corneal astigmatism provided excellent distance, intermediate, and near visual outcomes. It provided better predictability of the refractive results, nice rotational stability, and good optical performance. At the same time, it improved the spectacle independency of cataract patients with astigmatism. (Chin J Ophthalmol, 2017, 53: 274-280).

Posterior capsule opacification 9 years after phacoemulsification with a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To compare the development of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) and survival rate without capsulotomy after implantation of a hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) at the 9-year postoperative follow-up. METHODS: One of 3 experienced cataract surgeons performed standard phacoemulsification in one eye of 120 patients with cataract. The patients were randomized to implantation of either a hydrophobic acrylic IOL or a hydrophilic acrylic IOL. Both IOLs had sharp posterior edges. Retroillumination images of PCO were obtained with a fundus camera 9 years postoperatively and analyzed semiobjectively using POCOman computer software. RESULTS: Seventy-eight of the 120 patients completed the 9-year follow-up examination. Patients implanted with the hydrophilic IOL had significantly (p<0.001) more and denser PCO. The survival rate without Nd:YAG capsulotomy was significantly higher (p<0.001) in eyes with the hydrophobic IOL. CONCLUSIONS: After 9 years, more and denser PCO developed in eyes with the hydrophilic IOL than the hydrophobic IOL. The survival rate without the need for capsulotomy was higher in eyes with the hydrophobic IOL.

[Toric add-on intraocular lenses for correction of high astigmatism after pseudophakic keratoplasty]. / Torische AddOn-Intraokularlinsen zur Korrektur hoher Astigmatismen nach pseudophaker Keratoplastik.

Perforating keratoplasty shows good morphological results with a clear cornea; however, a limiting factor is often the resulting astigmatism, which cannot be corrected with either glasses or contact lenses (CL) in up to 20% of the patients. We retrospectively investigated 15 patients after pseudophakic perforating keratoplasty, who received implantation of toric add-on intraocular lenses (IOL) to correct astigmatism. The mean preoperative astigmatism of 6.5 diopter (dpt) could be reduced to a mean postoperative value of 1.0 dpt. The mean visual acuity could be improved from a preoperative value of sc <0.05 (cc 0.6) to a postoperative value of sc 0.4 (cc 0.63). There were no complications except for one case of a lens extension tear. Based on our good experiences we now provide toric add-on IOL to all patients with pseudophakic perforating keratoplasty when this cannot be corrected or only insufficiently corrected by conservative methods.

[Special Intraocular Lenses in Refractive Lens Surgery]. / Sonderlinsen in der refraktiven Chirurgie.

PURPOSE: Many different models and types of special intraocular lenses (IOL) are now available for refractive lens surgery. In particular, toric and multifocal IOL need specific conditions to achieve satisfactory results. For multifocal IOL, many models with different optical principles are available. For optimal individual patient-centred care, it is necessary to consider several different options. With special refractive lenses, the principle objective for the patients is to become less dependent on glasses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Different IOL are evaluated on the basis of published studies and our own experience and data. RESULTS: IOL filtering blue light should not be classified as special IOL, but should be used as standards. Aspherical IOL are only beneficial in special situations. Toric IOL give reliable and good results, as long as certain specific requirements are considered. Multifocal IOL are still an optical compromise, although they are the only IOL that can reliably make the patient independent of glasses. To achieve satisfying results, the optimal IOL model should be selected individually. CONCLUSION: Many refractive needs can now be adequately satisfied by special IOL. The surgeon should provide ideal perioperative conditions, and he should be aware of the different IOL principles if he is to give the patient optimal advice. This can help to avoid upsetting both patients and ophthalmologists.

[Clinical Results After Implantation of a New Diffractive, Multifokal Intraocular Lens with a Reduced Near Add Power (+ 2.75 D)]. / Klinische Ergebnisse nach Implantation einer neuen diffraktiven multifokalen Intraokularlinse mit einer reduzierten Nahaddition (+ 2,75 dpt).

PURPOSE: Evaluation of the clinical data 3 months after implantation of a new diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) with a reduced near add power of + 2.75 D. METHODS: In a prospective study, patients who underwent cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange with implantation of an MIOL (Tecnis ZKB00, Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, California, USA) were included. Three months postoperative corrected and uncorrected visual acuities at different distances were measured and evaluated. Those patients that underwent bilateral MIOL implantation additionally filled out a questionnaire 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Between October 2013 and August 2014, 115 eyes of 62 patients were implanted with the ZKB00 IOL. Mean postoperative refractions were - 0.27 ± 0.44 D for the spherical equivalent, respectively. Mean binocular CDVA was - 0.01 ± 0.3 logMAR with a mean binocular UDVA of 0.06 ± 0.08 logMAR. For near distance in 40 cm, an UNVA of 0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR three months postoperatively was measured. CONCLUSION: The ZKB00 IOL belongs to a group of novel MIOL with an increased intermediate visual performance. Our study shows good visual acuity at all distances, as well as a high rate of satisfaction and subjectively good image quality.

Endophthalmitis Occurring after Cataract Surgery: Outcomes of More Than 480 000 Cataract Surgeries, Epidemiologic Features, and Risk Factors.

PURPOSE: To report the incidence of endophthalmitis after senile cataract surgery and to describe the epidemiology and main risk factors. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center, cross-sectional descriptive study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent cataract surgery in Farabi Eye Hospital from 2006 through 2014. METHODS: All patients were evaluated retrospectively to compare risk factors, epidemiologic factors, and prophylaxis methods related to endophthalmitis. Patient records were used to gather the data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Epidemiologic factors, systemic diseases, other ocular pathologic characteristics, complications during the surgery, technique of cataract surgery, intraocular lens type, method of antibiotic prophylaxis, surgeon experience, vitreous culture, and vision outcome were evaluated in these patients. RESULTS: One hundred twelve endophthalmitis cases among 480 104 operations reported, equaling an incidence of 0.023%. Patients with diabetes mellitus (14.3%) and of older age (mean age, 81 years), perioperative communication with the vitreous (17.9%), extracapsular cataract surgery procedure (11%), and surgery on the left eye (58.9% vs. 41.1% for right eye; P = 0.03) showed a statistically significant association with endophthalmitis. Short-term treatment with topical or systemic preoperative antibiotics or postoperative subconjunctival injection was associated with a 40% to 50% reduced odds of endophthalmitis compared with no prophylaxis (P = 0.2). No cases of endophthalmitis were observed among the 25 920 patients who received intracameral cefuroxime, suggesting that this approach to antibiotic prophylaxis may be far more effective than traditional topical or subconjunctival approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery in our center was 0.023%, comparable with that of other previously published international studies. Older rural patients with immune suppressive diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, are particularly more prone to endophthalmitis. Vitreous loss at the time of surgery was associated with a significantly increased risk. Whereas antibiotic prophylaxis overall showed a 40% to 50% reduction in risk, intracameral cefuroxime was 100% effective in preventing endophthalmitis in this series.

[Level of Binocular Pseudoaccommodation in Patients Implanted with an Apodised, Diffractive and Trifocal Multifocal Intraocular Lens]. / Grad der binokularen Pseudoakkommodation mit einer apodisierten, diffraktiven und trifokalen Multifokallinse.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to make an evaluation of the pseudoaccommodation span and clinical results after implantation of a diffractive, apodised and trifocal multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL). METHODS: In a prospective, single-centre study 28 eyes of 14 patients were evaluated after in the bag implantation of the Micro-F MIOL (PhysIOL, Belgium) during routine microsurgical cataract surgery. Two to four months postoperatively the final examinations were performed. Refraction, visual acuity monocular and binocular (near in 40 cm, intermediate in 80 cm and distance) as well as binocular defocus curves were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean monocular UDVA (uncorrected distance visual acuity) increased significantly (p < 0.0001) from 0.471 ± 0.22 logMAR to 0.144 ± 0.14 logMAR. For the monocular UNVA (uncorrected near visual acuity) and UIVA (uncorrected intermediate visual acuity) postoperative values of 0.127 ± 0.117 and 0.158 ± 0.20 logMAR compared to binocular results of 0.057 ± 0.137 and 0.094 ± 0.181 logMAR were found. In the analysis of the binocular defocus curve two peaks could be found between 0.0 and - 0.5 D with a visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR and at - 3.0 D with a visual acuity of 0.068 logMAR. In the intermediate range a constant pseudoaccommodation of 0.2 logMAR could be found. CONCLUSIONS: The trifocal, diffractive MIOL shows good functional results in all distances with a span of pseudoaccommodation of 3D and a mean visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR and better. Indeed it is offering a high level of spectacle independency without the typical intermediate gap of bifocal diffractive MIOLs.

Types of intraocular lenses for cataract surgery in eyes with uveitis.

BACKGROUND: Cataract formation often occurs in people with uveitis. It is unclear which intraocular lens (IOL) type is optimal for use in cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of different IOLs on visual acuity, other visual outcomes, and quality of life in people with uveitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2013), 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. We last searched the electronic databases on 14 August 2013. We also performed forward and backward searching using the Science Citation Index and the reference lists of the included studies, respectively, in August 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, or poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) IOLs with or without heparin-surface modification (HSM), with each other, or with no treatment in adults with uveitis, for any indication, undergoing cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors screened the search results and for included studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. We contacted study investigators for additional information. We did not perform a meta-analysis due to variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes of interest. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs involving 216 participants (range of 2 to 140 participants with uveitic cataract per trial) and comparing up to four types of IOLs. The largest study was an international study with centers in Brazil, Egypt, Finland, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Spain, and the USA; two studies were conducted in Germany and one in Saudi Arabia. There was substantial heterogeneity with respect to the ages of participants and etiologies of uveitis within and across studies. The length of follow-up among the studies ranged from 1 to 24 months after cataract surgery. The studies were at low risk of selection bias, but two of the four studies did not employ masking and only one study included all randomized participants in the final analyses. The funding source was disclosed by investigators of the largest study (professional society) and not reported by the other three. Due to heterogeneity in lens types evaluated and outcomes reported among the trials, we did not combine data in a meta-analysis.In the largest study (140 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive one of four types of IOLs: hydrophobic acrylic, silicone, HSM PMMA, or unmodified PMMA. Proportions of participants with one or more Snellen lines of visual improvement were similar among the four treatment groups at one year' follow-up: 45 of 48 (94%) in the hydrophobic acrylic IOL group, 39 of 44 (89%) in the silicone IOL group, 18 of 22 (82%) in the HSM PMMA IOL group, and 22 of 26 (85%) in the unmodified PMMA IOL group. When comparing hydrophobic acrylic IOLs with silicone IOLs, the risk ratio (RR) was 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.20). At one year' follow-up, fewer eyes randomized to hydrophobic acrylic IOLs developed posterior synechiae when compared with eyes receiving silicone IOLs (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79); the effects between these groups were less certain with respect to developing posterior capsule opacification (PCO) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.37), corneal edema (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.12), cystoid macular edema (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.84), or mild IOL decentration (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.22).Two intra-individual studies also compared HSM PMMA IOLs with unmodified PMMA IOLs at three or six months of follow-up. These studies, including a combined total of 16 participants with uveitis, were insufficiently powered to detect differences in outcomes among eyes of people with uveitis randomized to receive HSM PMMA IOLs when compared with fellow eyes receiving unmodified PMMA IOLs.In the fourth study (60 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive a hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOL. At three months, there were no statistical or clinical differences between hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOL types in the proportions of participants with two or more Snellen lines of visual improvement (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.22). There were similar rates in the development of PCO between hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOLs at six months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25). The effect of the lenses on posterior synechiae was uncertain at six months' follow-up (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).None of the included studies reported quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the trials identified in this review, there is uncertainty as to which type of IOL provides the best visual and clinical outcomes in people with uveitis undergoing cataract surgery. The studies were small, not all lens materials were compared in all studies, and not all lens materials were available in all study sites. Evidence of a superior effect of hydrophobic acrylic lenses over silicone lenses, specifically for posterior synechiae outcomes comes from a single study at a high risk of performance and detection bias. However, due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity in outcome reporting, we found insufficient information to assess these and other types of IOL materials for cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis.

[Long-term visual outcome comparison of bilateral implantation of apodised diffractive versus progressive multizonal refractive multifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction]. / Langzeitergebnisse nach Implantation apodisiert diffraktiver versus progressiv refraktiver Multi-Zonen-Intraokularlinsen nach Kataraktoperation.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional effect of bilateral implantation of apodised diffractive versus progressive multizonal refractive multifocal intraocular lenses compared to standard monofocal intraocular lenses. PATIENTS AND METHOD: 229 patients underwent cataract extraction; 66 Array SA40N (AMO, Irvine, CA, USA), 76 SA60D3 ReSTOR (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA), and 87 MA60AC (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) were implanted. In this retrospective trial the main outcome measures were near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity and assessment of subjective function by questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 1.4 years with monofocal, 6.6 ± 1.7 with Array and 4.3 ± 1.1 with ReSTOR implants. Uncorrected binocular distance visual acuity was equivalent in the three groups. Uncorrected binocular near and intermediate visual acuity and spectacle independence were significantly higher in the two multifocal groups (p < 0.001). Glare and halos were more bothersome with multifocal than monofocals implants (p < 0.05) and adverse visual symptoms at night with Array implants but equivalent between ReSTOR patients and monofocal patients. Between the two multifocal groups spectacle independence was higher and adverse visual symptoms lower in ReSTOR patients than in Array patients (p < 0.05). ReSTOR patients reported a higher overall visual satisfaction than the other groups (p < 0.001) and rated their vision at 8.8 ± 1.8. Monofocal patients reported a slightly higher satisfaction at 7.6 ± 1.7 compared to Array patients at 6.9 ± 2.6 (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this long-term study the highest overall visual satisfaction could be achieved by bilateral implantation of apodised diffractive intraocular lenses.

Multifocal intraocular lens differentiation using defocus curves.

PURPOSE: To determine the most appropriate analysis technique for the differentiation of multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) designs by using defocus curve assessment of visual capability. METHODS: Four groups of 15 subjects were implanted bilaterally with either monofocal intraocular lenses, refractive MIOLs, diffractive MIOLs, or a combination of refractive and diffractive MIOLs. Defocus curves between -5.0 D and +1.5 D were evaluated by using an absolute and relative depth-of-focus method, the direct comparison method, and a new "area-of-focus" metric. The results were correlated with a subjective perception of near and intermediate vision. RESULTS: Neither depth-of-focus method of analysis was sensitive enough to differentiate between MIOL groups (P > 0.05). The direct comparison method indicated that the refractive MIOL group performed better at +1.00 diopter (D), -1.00 D, and -1.50 D and worse at -3.00 D, -3.50 D, -4.00 D, and -5.00 D than did the diffractive MIOL group (P < 0.05). The area-of-focus intermediate zone was greater with the refractive than with the diffractive MIOL group (P = 0.005) and the near zone was better with the diffractive (P = 0.020) and "mix and match" (P = 0.039) groups than with the refractive MIOL group. The subjective perception of intermediate and near vision agreed best with the area-of-focus metric for the intermediate (r(s) = 0.408, P = 0.010) and near zone (r(s) = 0.484, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional depth-of-focus metrics provide a single value to quantify the useful range of vision; however, they fail to provide sufficient detail to differentiate between MIOL designs. The direct comparison method provides a large amount of information, although the results can be complex to interpret. The proposed area-of-focus metric provides a simple, but differentiating method of evaluating MIOL defocus curves.

Intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction: past, present, and future.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the development of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs), what we have learned since their introduction a few decades ago, what are the options currently on the market, and where the technology is heading in the future. RECENT FINDINGS: Multifocal and accommodating IOLs have gone through several modifications to improve distance, intermediate and near vision compared to their predecessors. These modifications have also targeted unwanted side-effects such as glare and halos in the multifocal lenses and inconsistent near-vision results in the accommodating IOLs and although the results have improved, they are far from perfect. Therefore, careful patient selection for each of these technologies is crucial for success and patient satisfaction. SUMMARY: Presbyopia correction remains a great challenge in cataract and refractive surgery. In this article, we review the development of presbyopia-correcting IOLs, starting from the simple, two-zone, multifocal, refractive models introduced 2 decades ago, the current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved multifocal and accommodating lenses as well as those undergoing FDA trials and take a look into developing technologies that may be available to us in the future.

Resultado visual con el uso de un Lente Intraocular Tórico / Visual result with the use of a intraocular torico lens

Objetivo: Describir la agudeza visual no corregida postoperatoria y los componentes astigmáticos que intervienen en su resultado en los pacientes operados de catarata con implante de lente intraocular tórico. Material y métodos: Revisión de historias de 52 ojos (38 pacientes) operados de catarata a quienes se implantó un lente Acrysof Toric a través de una incisión en cornea clara. Se seleccionaron los ojos con astigmatismo corneal superior a 1.00 D. Se consideró la AVNC postoperatoria más tardía entre las semanas 2da y 4ta de postoperados. La población se dividió en tres grupos de acuerdo al modelo de LIO tórico implantado para su respectivo análisis. Resultados: La AVNC postoperatoria más frecuente fue de 20/20 a 20/25 (73.08 por ciento en los 3 grupos). El astigmatismo corneal preoperatorio fluctuó desde 1.07 D a 3.57 D siendo el rango más frecuente el >=2.00 D (50 por ciento). El Astigmatismo inducido quirúrgicamente ingresado más frecuente fue de 0.50 D (59.62 por ciento). El cilindro cruzado corneal fluctuó desde 0.98 a 3.07 D siendo el rango más frecuente el <1.55 D (40.38 por ciento). El astigmatismo corneal residual anticipado más frecuente estuvo en el rango de 0.0 a 0.25 D (59.62 por ciento), pero fluctuó desde 0.02 D a 1.01 D. Conclusión: La implantación del lente intraocular Acrysof toric provee una buena AVNC postoperatoria

[Multifocal, toric, and aspheric intraocular lenses for glaucoma patients]. / Implants multifocaux, toriques et asphériques pour les patients glaucomateux.

Cataract surgery has greatly developed over recent years, mainly due to the introduction and availability of newer intraocular lenses (IOLs) with modern platforms and better visual outcomes. Aspheric, multifocal, and toric lenses are among these new lenses. Glaucomatous eyes have a number of particularities that can influence the way these implants are indicated and used. Contrast sensitivity is usually reduced in eyes with glaucoma and, sometimes, a poor IOL choice can aggravate the disease. Small pupils and zonular weakness are frequently associated with certain types of glaucoma (e.g. pseudoexfoliative glaucoma) and can limit the indication of some of the newer IOLs. Lastly, in some cases of combined surgery, the postoperative axial length and anterior chamber depth can change after surgery, requiring adjustments in the IOL power calculation. The purpose of this article is to quickly review some of the specific features of cataract surgery in the glaucomatous eye, some of the IOL choices, and the necessary precautions for these eyes.

[Binocular clinical comparison study of Tecnis multifocal aspheric and monofocal spherical intraocular lenses].

PURPOSE: To compare visual function in pseudophakic patients with bilateral implantation of Tecnis multifocal aspheric and conventional monofocal spherical intraocular lenses (IOL). METHODS: A prospective study of 100 consecutive cases (200 eyes) was conducted. All cataract patients underwent phacoemulsification were randomized to receive multifocal aspheric IOL (Tecnis ZM900, AMO, multifocal aspheric group) or conventional spherical IOL (Akreos Adapt, Bausch & Lomb, monofocal spherical group). The following investigations were performed to assess the uncorrected and distance-corrected visual acuity of distance, intermediate and near distances, accommodative amplitude, spherical aberrations of total eye, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity and near stereoacuity. Patients were surveyed for visual disturbances and lifestyle visual quality. The independent-samples t test was used to compare the measure data which met normal distribution and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the measure data which didn't meet. The chi-square test was applied to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: The uncorrected and distance-corrected bilateral visual acuity of multifocal aspheric group at 30 cm and 40 cm were 0.24 ± 0.12 and 0.22 ± 0.11 (logMAR), better than monofocal spherical group (Z = -8.261, P = 0.000; Z = -5.508, P = 0.000), but the visual acuity at other distances had no statistical difference between two groups. Patients with multifocal aspheric IOL had significantly higher accommodative amplitude than those with monofocal spherical IOL, improved about 2.3 ∼ 2.8 D (Z = -10.655, P = 0.000; Z = -2.709, P = 0.007). Mean spherical aberration of multifocal aspheric group was (0.027 ± 0.160) µm and (0.006 ± 0.083) µm, significantly lower than that of monofocal spherical group (0.269 ± 0.161) µm, (0.037 ± 0.205) µm at 5 mm and 3 mm pupil diameter (Z = -8.815, P = 0.000; Z = -2.791, P = 0.005). The difference of contrast sensitivity was not significant, but glare sensitivity was higher for monofocal spherical group than for multifocal aspheric group. Multifocal aspheric group showed statistically better uncorrected stereoacuity (72.4 ± 29.9)″ than monofocal spherical group (92.8 ± 35.7)″ (Z = -3.089, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The present clinical results demonstrated that Tecnis multifocal aspheric group had better near visual acuity, accommodative amplitude and near stereoacuity as compared to conventional monofocal spherical group. The aspheric design reduced spherical aberration of total eye and improved contrast sensitivity in some way.