Long-term outcomes of intrastromal femtosecond laser presbyopia correction: 3-year results

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgery in Patients With Intrastromal Femtosecond Laser Treatment of Presbyopia (INTRACOR)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in patients who underwent intrastromal femtosecond laser treatment of presbyopia (INTRACOR).

METHODS

This was an interventional case series of 8 patients (10 eyes) who presented for cataract surgery 6.1 ± 3.2 years (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) after INTRACOR (Technolas Perfect Vision GmbH) treatment. A monofocal IOL was implanted in 9 eyes (7 patients) and a small-aperture IOL was implanted in 1 eye. The IOL power was calculated without adjustments using biometry obtained after the INTRACOR treatment. For additional calculations, keratometry obtained before the INTRACOR treatment was used. Postoperative examinations included visual acuity testing, manifest refraction, defocus curve, ocular biometry, corneal tomography, aberrometry, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and slit-lamp examination.

RESULTS

After the cataract surgery, the mean ± SD uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.37 ± 0.17 logMAR, the corrected distance visual acuity was 0.10 ± 0.10 logMAR, and the manifest refraction spherical equivalent, adjusted to infinity, was +0.39 ± 0.63 diopters (D). Intermediate and near visual acuity, both uncorrected and distance-corrected, and distance-corrected defocus curves varied considerably among patients. Using biometry performed after INTRACOR, the traditional IOL power calculation formulas produced hyperopic outcomes, with the mean ± SD prediction error ranging from +0.72 ± 0.34 to +0.96 ± 0.41 D. Although the mean ± SD prediction error decreased (range: -0.34 ± 0.56 to -0.15 ± 0.53 D) when using keratometry obtained before INTRACOR, the accuracy remained low due to high variability.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cataract who had previous INTRACOR treatment, IOL power calculation could be inaccurate, with a tendency toward hyperopic outcomes. These results require confirmation in more extensive studies. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(10):676-682.].

Presbyopia correction after previous Intracor treatment: Combined implantation of a small-aperture and a non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus lens

PURPOSE

We present the case of implantation of two different Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses (EDoF IOLs) in a patient with a history of unilateral intrastromal femtosecond laser treatment for presbyopia correction (Intracor).

OBSERVATIONS

The patient reported decreasing visual acuity at near distance and increasing spectacle dependence. Ten years earlier, he had Intracor treatment for presbyopia correction in his left eye. Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 0.08 logMAR for the right eye and 0.16 logMAR for the left eye. Apart from dysfunctional lens syndrome, the examination results were unremarkable. Phacoemulsification and subsequent IOL implantation was performed in both eyes. The left eye was implanted with an IC-8 (AcuFocus, Irvine, CA, USA), whereas the fellow eye was implanted with an AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA). Postoperatively, CDVA improved to 0.02 and 0.04 logMAR for the right and left eye. Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) was 0.24 logMAR for the right eye and -0.04 logMAR for the left eye, binocular UIVA was -0.04 logMAR. The patient reported a low level of photic phenomena and spectacle independence for far and intermediate distance.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE

Combined implantation of a non-diffractive and a small-aperture EDoF lens after previous unilateral Intracor treatment could successfully improve visual acuity at far and intermediate distance.

Advances in Corneal Surgical and Pharmacological Approaches to the Treatment of Presbyopia

The purpose of this article is to review the current status of presbyopia amelioration with surgical and pharmacologic procedures that partially compensate for loss of accommodation in advance of cataract surgery and lens replacement. Over the last few years, several corneal surgical and topical pharmacological approaches for the treatment of presbyopia have been introduced to the marketplace or are in the developmental pipeline. The approaches vary in invasiveness, duration of effect, reversibility, risk/benefit ratio, and clinical results. The advantages and disadvantages for each are discussed. Corneal surgical interventions aim to provide improved near and intermediate vision in patients with presbyopia through refractive means that extend ocular depth of focus through shape modification. The use of miotic drops or corneal lamellar implants extend depth of focus with the "pinhole" aperture size reduction effect. Unlike in adults younger than 40 years, the refractive status of the patient with presbyopia is not stable. Hence, procedures that provide a permanent refractive change may not provide long-term full correction; eye drops or other treatments that are self-reversing in time or are easily reversible may be used as needed. On the horizon, procedures are being explored that may add years of functional lens accommodation by preserving the deformable gel properties of the lens. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(6 Suppl):S20-S27.].

Long-term Outcomes After LASIK Using a Hybrid Bi-aspheric Micro-monovision Ablation Profile for Presbyopia Correction

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual outcomes 6 years after hybrid bi-aspheric multifocal central laser in situ keratomileusis for presbyopia correction (PresbyLASIK) treatments.

METHODS

Thirty-eight eyes of 19 patients consecutively treated with central PresbyLASIK were assessed. The mean age of the patients was 51 ± 3 years at the time of treatment with a mean spherical equivalent refraction of -0.57 ± 1.98 diopters (D) and mean astigmatism of 0.58 ± 0.57 D. Monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), corrected near visual acuity (CNVA), and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively for the dominant eye, non-dominant eye, and binocularly. Subjective quality of vision and near vision were assessed using the 10-item, Rasch-scaled, Quality of Vision (QoV) Questionnaire and Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ), respectively.

RESULTS

At 6 years postoperatively, mean binocular UDVA was 20/18 ± 4 and mean binocular UNVA and UIVA were 0.11 ± 0.13 and -0.08 ± 0.08 logRAD, respectively. Spherical equivalent showed a slow hyperopic drift of +0.10 D per year with refractive astigmatism stable from 6 weeks postoperatively. Defocus curves showed an improvement of 0.4 Snellen lines at best focus from 1 to 6 years of follow-up, reaching preoperative levels. Compared to the preoperative status, the corneal and ocular spherical aberrations (at a 6-mm diameter) decreased and were stable from 3 months of follow-up. Questionnaires revealed a postoperative unaided QoV score comparable to preoperative scores and with an improved postoperative unaided NAVQ score compared to preoperative scores with best correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Presbyopic treatment using a hybrid bi-aspheric micro-monovision ablation profile is safe and efficacious even after 6 years postoperatively. The postoperative outcomes indicate improvements in binocular vision at far, intermediate, and near distances. An 8% re-treatment rate should be considered to increase satisfaction levels, including a 3% reversal rate. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(2):89-96.].

Unilateral Refractive Lens Exchange with a Multifocal Intraocular Lens in Emmetropic Presbyopic Patients

Purpose: To evaluate the visual outcome and patient satisfaction after a unilateral multifocal IOL implantation in the non-dominant eye of emmetropic patients with presbyopia. Methods: An interventional case series of consecutive patients who underwent unilateral phacoemulsification with femto-laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and refractive lens exchange (RLE), followed by an implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL (FineVision Micro F), was performed in the non-dominant eyes of emmetropic patients with presbyopia. After 6 months of follow-up, the main outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). Secondary outcomes included spherical equivalent (SE), refraction, contrast sensitivity, patient questionnaire and presence of visual side effects. Results: A total of 26 eyes of 26 patients, with an average age of 53.8 ± 4.1 years, were included in this study. Preoperative mean UDVA was 0.13 ± 0.04 logMAR (Snellen 20/27), UIVA was 0.46 ± 0.12 logMAR (Snellen 20/58), and UNVA was 0.66 ± 0.17 logMAR (Snellen 20/91), in comparison to postoperative mean UDVA of 0.18 ± 0.32 logMAR (Snellen 20/30) (p = 0.32), UIVA of 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR (Snellen 20/30) (p < 0.005), and UNVA of 0.02 ± 0.10 logMAR (Snellen 20/21) (p < 0.005). Monocular UNVA of 20/25 or better in the operated eye was achieved in 23 (88%) patients. Twenty-four (96%) patients said they would recommend this procedure to family and friends. There were no intraoperative complications and no IOL exchange was required. Conclusions: A unilateral RLE of the non-dominant eye with FLACS and a trifocal diffractive IOL (FineVision Micro F) implantation in emmetropic, presbyopic patients is provides satisfactory distance, intermediate, and near visual outcomes with no complications reported in this preliminary case series.

Presbyopic Excimer Laser Ablation: A Review

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of available presbyopic excimer laser ablation profiles.

METHODS

Literature review.

RESULTS

Monovision with excimer laser traditionally applies near correction to the non-dominant eye. Different excimer laser presbyopic approaches include the increase in depth of focus, through the controlled change of spherical aberration or asphericity, or multifocal ablation patterns with central or peripheral near vision zones. The studies investigating different excimer laser ablation patterns applied in previously myopic eyes revealed high levels of efficacy with all ablation profiles (between 68% and 99% achieving binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity [UDVA] of 20/25 or better, and between 70% and 100% achieving uncorrected near visual acuity [UNVA] presenting J3 or better). In hypermetropic eyes, most of the studies revealed high levels of efficacy with different platforms (between 78% and 100% achieving binocular UDVA of 20/25 or better and between 70% and 100% achieving UNVA presenting J3 or better). Loss of two or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity varied between 0% and 10% in the myopic eyes and between 0% and 14% in the hyperopic eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that excimer laser presbyopic strategies accomplish spectacle independence at reasonable levels. There are reliable and safe options for both myopic and hyperopic eyes with satisfactory outcomes regarding near and distance vision. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(10):698-710.].

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

Presbyopia is a global problem affecting over a billion people worldwide. The prevalence of unmanaged presbyopia is as high as 50% of those over 50 years of age in developing world populations, due to a lack of awareness and accessibility to affordable treatment, and is even as high as 34% in developed countries. Definitions of presbyopia are inconsistent and varied, so we propose a redefinition that states "presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements". Strategies for correcting presbyopia include separate optical devices located in front of the visual system (reading glasses) or a change in the direction of gaze to view through optical zones of different optical powers (bifocal, trifocal or progressive addition spectacle lenses), monovision (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses, laser refractive surgery and corneal collagen shrinkage), simultaneous images (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses and corneal inlays), pinhole depth of focus expansion (with intraocular lenses, corneal inlays and pharmaceuticals), crystalline lens softening (with lasers or pharmaceuticals) or restored dynamics (with 'accommodating' intraocular lenses, scleral expansion techniques and ciliary muscle electrostimulation); these strategies may be applied differently to the two eyes to optimise the range of clear focus for an individual's task requirements and minimise adverse visual effects. However, none fully overcome presbyopia in all patients. While the restoration of natural accommodation or an equivalent remains elusive, guidance is given on presbyopic correction evaluation techniques.

Non-lens-based surgical techniques for presbyopia correction

INTRODUCTION

Presbyopia is the most prevalent refractive error. With a progressive aging population, its surgical correction is an important challenge for the ophthalmology community, as well as the millions of patients who suffer from it, and who are increasingly demanding alternatives to its correction with glasses or contact lenses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A review is presented with a synthesised discussion on the pathophysiological theories of presbyopia and an updated and analytical description of the non-lens involvement surgical techniques used to treat presbyopia.

RESULTS

Corneal procedures include various types of corneal implants and photo-ablative techniques that generate a multifocal cornea, or monovision. Scleral procedures exert a traction on supralenticular sclera that supposedly would improve the amplitude of accommodation.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the techniques are able to completely eliminate the need for near -vision glasses, but many of them manage to improve the refractive status of the patients. More studies with rigorous and standardised methods and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the changes in the near vision of the patients, in order to corroborate the real and practical usefulness of many of these techniques.

Keratectasia After Presbyopia Treatment With INTRACOR

PURPOSE

To report a case of keratectasis of a patient underwent INTRACOR presbyopic treatment 5 years ago.

METHODS

Case Report.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight-year-old gentleman had presented with deteriorating vision in his left eye. He reported undergoing INTRACOR presbyopic treatment in that eye 5 years ago. At presentation, his best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40. Slit-lamp examination of the left eye showed an ectatic cornea with concentric corneal scars. Corneal topography revealed marked keratectasia, with significant anterior and posterior elevations. The area of maximal corneal thinning coincided with the site of maximal elevation. Patient was fitted with hybrid contact lenses as a temporary treatment option and his best-corrected visual acuity improved to 20/30.

CONCLUSIONS

INTRACOR is one of the newer modalilities to correct presbyopia. One must be aware of the complication such as corneal ectasia after this presbyopic treatment.