Lens-based surgical correction of presbyopia. Where are we in 2020?

Visual performance, light distortion and patient reported outcomes with a new bi-aspheric non-diffractive extended depth of focus intraocular lens

Background

To evaluate refractive, visual, and patient-reported outcomes three months after bilateral implantation of a novel bi-aspheric, non-diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) using PhaseRing technology to achieve good vision across distances with reduced dysphotopsia.

Methods

Twenty-two patients received bilateral Asqelio EDOF IOLs (AST VisionCare Inc.) and were evaluated 3 months post-surgery. The main outcomes assessed were refractive error, monocular and binocular visual acuities at distance, intermediate (67 cm) and near (40 cm), low contrast visual acuity, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, and patient questionnaires.

Results

The average postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.31 ± 0.30 D. Astigmatism of ≤ 1.00 D was present in all eyes (100%, n = 44), with 75% (n = 33) showing astigmatism of ≤ 0.50 D. Every patient attained a corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 20/25 or better and a distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) of 20/32 or better. Contrast sensitivity met or exceeded normal levels under both photopic and mesopic conditions, with and without glare, except at 12 cycles per degree under mesopic conditions with glare. Light distortion index was comparable to published reports on monofocal IOLs and other non-diffractive EDOF IOLs, and lower than diffractive multifocal IOLs. Post-surgery, 90.9% (n = 20) of patients reported being satisfied with their vision. No significant visual symptoms were reported.

Conclusion

Asqelio™ EDOF IOL offers an efficient design, providing good clinical outcomes for distance and intermediate vision, while some patients reach functional levels of near vision. Its non-diffractive design minimizes dysphotopsia and reduces light distortion compared to other presbyopia-correcting IOLs.

Monovision versus multifocality for presbyopia during primary phacoemulsification: systematic review and network meta-analysis

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) focuses on comparing monovision and bilateral multifocal lenses (bMFIOL) implantation methods in treating presbyopia, a common age-related condition often seen in post-cataract surgery patients. This review focuses on evaluating the efficacy, user satisfaction and limitations of these two approaches through direct or indirect comparison. A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library, considering studies up to 15 July 2022, with direct or indirect comparisons between any monovision and bMFIOL implantation with bilateral cataract surgery. The study protocol has been published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022340257). Thirty-two studies (3082 patients) were included in the NMA for the primary outcome, complete post-operative spectacle independence. NMA showed monovision to be inferior to bMFIOLs, as bMFIOL was more likely to provide complete spectacle independence (RR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.34 to 3.15, p = 0.002) compared to monovision. Monovision resulted in less glare compared to bMFIOL (RR = 0.343, 95% CI = 0.181 to 0.651, p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between monovision and bMFIOL for binocular unadjusted distance visual acuity (MD = 70.01, 95% CI = -19.88 to 4.60, p = 0.437) and binocular unadjusted near visual acuity (MD = 5.46, 95% CI = -5.24 to 10.94, p = 0.191). When compared to monovision, bMFIOL provided greater complete spectacle independence at the expense of greater glare. This study was limited by data heterogeneity, and further studies with standardized reporting would be useful.

Laser refractive correction of presbyopia

Presbyopia is an inevitable and progressive loss of the eye's ability to focus on nearby objects due to aging, which affects everyone regardless of their refractive error. Uncorrected presbyopia is a significant burden worldwide and affects the quality of life. Conservative options include spectacle correction, contact lenses, and pharmacologic agents. Spectacles are commonly used to correct vision, but have certain drawbacks such as peripheral blur and impaired depth perception. These limitations have been associated with an increased risk of accidental falls. Several surgical options are available to address these issues, including cornea-based, lens-based, or scleral procedures. These procedures involve modifying the cornea's optics, replacing the crystalline lens, or attempting to restore accommodation. Each of the options has its benefits and limitations. One of the most common surgical methods of presbyopic correction that has recently become popular is presbyopic Laser assisted In situ keratomileusis (LASIK) due to its improved safety and efficacy. This article is a review of all the currently available data and studies regarding the various methods of correction of presbyopia, with an emphasis on the principles and outcomes of the corneal laser refractive procedures for presbyopia correction, such as PresbyLASIK, Supracor, PRESBYOND laser blended vision, and Custom Q.

[Outcomes of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses implantation]

Extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) are the latest IOL designs. In recent years, several models of EDOF IOLs have become available in Russia, two of which (Tecnis Symfony and Acrysof IQ Vivity) are implanted in our clinic. Comparative studies devoted to the results of implantation of the new EDOF IOLs are rare in the available literature.

PURPOSE

This article compares the outcomes of implantation of two EDOF IOLs in patients with presbyopia and/or cataract.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The prospective study included 60 patients (81 eyes) after implantation of EDOF IOL Tecnis Symfony (32 patients, 45 eyes; group 1) or EDOF IOL AcrySof IQ Vivity (28 patients, 36 eyes; group 2). The mean follow-up period was 3.9±1.3 months.

RESULTS

All groups showed a significant (p<0.05) increase in uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA), and distance visual acuity (UCDVA) at the maximum follow-up time compared to preoperative values. In group 1, the best corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA) increased from 0.61±0.10 to 0.82±0.16 at the maximum follow-up time, and in group 2 - from 0.58±0.08 to 0.67±0.12 (p>0.05). Both groups showed a significant increase in best corrected intermediate and distance visual acuity (BCIVA and BCDVA) at the maximum follow-up time. The increase in the indicator compared to the preoperative period was not significant in both groups (p>0.05). The frequency of side optical phenomena was low in both groups. No significant differences were found between the groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study presents a comparative analysis of the results of implantation of two different EDOF IOLs. Both lenses were comparable in most of the studied parameters, including providing good distance and intermediate vision, functional near vision, as well as a low frequency of side optical phenomena. In all cases the patients were satisfied with the results of the surgical intervention.

Refractive cataract surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study to provide an overview of recent publications and opinions in refractive cataract surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the advent of intraocular lenses (IOLs) on different platforms, the surgeon has a wide arena of types of IOL to choose, depending on the patient's visual requirement. Optimization of the tear film, integrating tomography and topography devices for appropriate keratometry values, biometry, use of advanced formulas for IOL power calculation and application of newer IOLs can help achieve target refraction in cases scheduled for cataract surgery. Intraoperative aberrometry can be a useful aid for cataract surgery in postrefractive cases and can help minimize residual postoperative astigmatism.

SUMMARY

Evolvement and rapid advancement of technology allows to impart desired refractive outcomes in most of the cases postcataract surgery. Appropriate preoperative and intraoperative factors should be considered to achieve the desired postoperative outcome.

Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of two models of trifocal intraocular lenses in eyes with previous corneal ablation to treat hyperopia

BACKGROUND

To assess whether a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with neutral spherical aberration (SA) provides better visual and refractive outcomes than a trifocal IOL with negative SA after hyperopic corneal laser ablation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified according to the IOL implanted after cataract or clear lens phacoemulsification [group 1, PhysIOL FineVision Pod-F (negative SA); group 2, Rayner RayOne Trifocal (neutral SA)]. We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

198 eyes of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 120 eyes and group 2 comprised 78 eyes. At completion, the refractive and predictability results were significantly better in group 1 than in group 2 for manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) (P < 0.001). Differences were not significant for UDVA (P = 0.647), CDVA (P = 0.343), UIVA (P = 0.059), UNVA (P = 0.382), binocular UIVA (P = 0.157), or binocular UNVA (P = 0.527). Safety and efficacy indices in refractive lens exchange (RLE) eyes were 0.96 and 0.91, and 0.89 and 0.93 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.254 and 0.168). Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (P > 0.05, all items).

CONCLUSION

In eyes previously treated with hyperopic corneal ablation, implantation of a trifocal IOL with neutral SA provided better efficacy and safety outcomes but worse predictability outcomes than those obtained with a trifocal model with negative SA.

IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research In Sight) Analysis of the Incidence of Monovision in Cataract Patients with Bilateral Monofocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Purpose

To determine the incidence of pseudophakic monovision among patients bilaterally implanted with monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to characterize the distribution of myopic offsets achieved.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective database study included data on patients receiving care from ophthalmologists who contributed to the Academy IRIS® (Intelligent Research In Sight) Registry. Anonymized data were collected, including patient age, ethnicity, procedure data (CPT code, date, laterality), and postoperative manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) in both eyes implanted with monofocal or monofocal toric IOLs. No data regarding IOL manufacturer, model, or power were collected. One primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients achieving monovision (defined as emmetropia within ±0.25 diopters [D] in one eye and a myopic offset of ≥0.50 D in the fellow eye) among all patients receiving bilateral monofocal IOLs at the time of cataract surgery between January 1, 2016, and September 1, 2019, with at least 90 days of follow-up. Other primary outcomes included the distribution and frequency of myopic offsets (anisometropia) between eyes.

Results

Of the 16,765 people receiving bilateral monofocal IOLs within the study period, 4796 (28.6%) achieved emmetropia in at least one eye, as defined by an MRSE within ± 0.25 D. The incidence of monovision among these patients was 34.2% (1638/4796). One-quarter (24.7%; 405/1638) of patients who achieved monovision had a myopic offset between 0.50 and 0.74 D, with more than one-third (35.2%; 576/1638) falling within 0.75-1.24 D and 18.0% within 1.25-1.74 D. A myopic offset ≥1.75 D was observed in 22.1% (362/1638) of patients who achieved monovision.

Conclusion

Pseudophakic monovision for presbyopia correction was achieved in ~34% of patients in the IRIS Registry bilaterally implanted with monofocal IOLs, with myopic offsets typically ranging from 0.5 to 1.24 D.

Comparative analysis of visual quality between unilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens

AIM

To compare visual quality after unilateral cataract surgery with implantation of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL.

METHODS

The prospective nonrandom, comparative study consisted of 60 eyes of 60 patients suffering unilateral cataract surgery with implantation of two different IOLs: AT LISA tri 839MP (30 eyes; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany) and LS-313 MF30 (30 eyes; Oculentis GmbH, Germany). Visual acuity, refractive outcome, contrast sensitivity, defocus curves, quality of vision, and optical phenomena were evaluated at 3mo postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences between groups in uncorrected distance visual acuity (P=0.13) and uncorrected near visual acuity (P=0.54). In contrast, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was better in trifocal group compared to the refractive multifocal group (P=0.02). No significant statistical between-group difference was detected in cylinder (P=0.43). Compared to trifocal group, spherical refraction and spherical equivalent in refractive multi focal group were more myopic (P<0.01). Under photopic conditions, no significant statistical differences were found between groups in contrast sensitivity at 3 and 6 cycles per degree (cpd). The refractive multifocal group performed better at 12 and 18 cpd than the trifocal group (P=0.01, P=0.034, respectively). The questionnaires of quality of vision and optical phenomena showed no differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Trifocal IOL is superior to refractive multifocal IOL in intermediate visual acuity. Rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL is more myopic in automated refraction and significantly better for the photopic contrast sensitivity at high frequency.

Living with presbyopia: experiences from a virtual roundtable dialogue among impacted individuals and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia is a common progressive vision disorder characterised by an inability to focus on near objects. The emergence of newer treatment options in addition to spectacles or contact lenses highlights the importance of assessing patient/user preferences.

METHODS

People with presbyopia and healthcare professionals (HCPs) took part in a moderated, structured discussion of specific questions on a virtual advisory-board platform. The objective was to better understand unmet needs and the experience of living with the condition. Closed and open questions were included.

RESULTS

Nine individuals (age 40 to 70 years) with presbyopia participated, from Australia, China, France, Italy, Ireland, Japan and the US. One ophthalmologist and one optometrist represented the perspective of HCPs. Over two weeks, 621 posts were entered on the platform. There was widespread agreement that the often stated association between age and presbyopia was unfortunate. Some participants had developed presbyopia at 30-45 years of age. What is more, the association with age was seen as implying a natural process, reducing the incentive to treat. Instead there was a call for an action-oriented view of presbyopia as a condition which may be effectively treated in the future. All participants experienced dealing with presbyopia as burdensome, affecting quality of life to varying degrees. When considering new treatments, convenience was the most important factor. The option to administer drops when needed was considered favourable, but short-acting treatments may not reduce inconvenience compared with spectacles. Participants viewed a therapy that targets the underlying cause of the condition favourably compared with symptomatic treatment. Side effects would severely reduce the appeal of drops. For clinical trials in presbyopia, patient-reported outcomes should be mandatory and need adequately to capture quality of life. Studies in presbyopia must be designed to minimise the inconvenience to participants in order to counter the risk of high drop-out rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The interactive format provided insights into living with presbyopia, particularly the negative impact on quality of life, subjects' openness to new therapies, and the need to move away from considering the condition an unavoidable and intractable consequence of ageing.

Polychromatic Assessment of a Refractive Segmented EDOF Intraocular Lens

This study aimed to evaluate in vitro performance refractive segmented EDOF intraocular lenses under polychromatic light using an optical bench that complies with the ISO 11979-2 Norm. The through focus modulation transfer function (TF-MTF) of the Femtis Comfort LS-313 MF15 (Oculentis GmbH, Berlin, Germany) IOL was evaluated for IOLs with three different base powers. The effect of the asymmetry of the segmented designs was evaluated with 3 different wavelengths and with polychromatic light at a 3.0 mm and 5.0 mm pupil diameter. It was demonstrated that the TF-MTF curves exhibit a bifocal profile that, in practice, results in an EDOF design. As a consequence of the LCA, the TF-MTF values in white light were lower than in monochromatic light. Images of the USAF test chart were obtained to confirm the prediction of the TF-MTFs. We found that Femtis Comfort is a bifocal low-addition IOL and this fact can result in an EDOF effect which was obtained previously in clinical trials. Moreover, we showed that the base power influences the IOL optical quality, which results as more effective for high powers (hyperopic eyes) than for low powers (myopic eyes). The LCA of the segmented refractive design was very low and presumably not clinically relevant.

Laser corneal enhancement after trifocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes that had previously undergone photoablative corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual and refractive outcomes of laser corneal enhancement (LCE) after trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes previously treated with myopic/ hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery (LCRS).

SETTING

Clinica Baviera-AIER-Eye group, Spain.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative case series.

METHODS

Patients were classified by primary LCRS (myopic/hyperopic). We evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), predictability, safety, efficacy, and satisfaction after implantation of two trifocal IOL models (Physiol-FineVision and Zeiss-ATLisa 839) and subsequent laser enhancement.

RESULTS

We assessed 186 eyes from 146 patients (89 myopic, 97 hyperopic). At the last visit, refractive outcomes were better in myopic than in hyperopic eyes, with statistically significant differences for sphere (p<0.001), cylinder (p<0.001), MRSE (p=0.003), CDVA (p=0.005), UDVA (p=0.047) and UNVA (p=0.003) but not for UIVA (p=0.580), binocular UIVA (p=0.660), or binocular UNVA (p=0.836). Predictability differences were nonsignificant between groups for a final MRSE of ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D (p=0.167 and 0.502). Efficacy and safety were similar in both groups (p=0.235 and p=0.080). A greater myopic MRSE was present after trifocal implantation in myopic than hyperopic eyes (MRSE= -0.93D vs -0.69D, p=0.013) and the differences were maintained after enhancement between both groups (MRSE -0.00 D vs 0.00 D, p=0.003) respectively. Overall satisfaction was similar in both groups (p>0.05 all items).

CONCLUSION

Corneal laser enhancement after implantation of a trifocal IOL in eyes previously treated for myopia/hyperopia with LCRS is safe, effective, predictable, and highly satisfactory.