Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia.

BACKGROUND: Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among participants with presbyopia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 September 2019. We searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles and the abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) for the years 2005 to 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five studies conducted in Europe with a total of 175 participants. All five studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (primary outcome of the review), while some also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 58 to 64 years. Only one study reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). In two studies, the investigators observed that participants' satisfaction or spectacle independence may be higher in the trifocal group at six months, although another study found no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction or spectacle independence between groups. Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Two studies reported information on adverse events at one year. One study reported that participants showed no intraoperative or postoperative complications, while the other study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy. The certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty of evidence that compared to bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there is no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity and quality of life.

Presentación clínica de la apendicitis aguda en pacientes inmunocomprometidos por diabetes o VIH/sida.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Los pacientes inmunocomprometidos presentan respuesta inflamatoria limitada que puede retrasar el diagnóstico de la apendicitis aguda (AA). OBJETIVO: Evaluar si el inmunocompromiso puede afectar el curso clínico y evolución de la AA. MÉTODO: Análisis retrospectivo, comparativo, de pacientes sometidos a apendicectomía por AA: con VIH, diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) y sin otra patología. RESULTADOS: Se revisaron 128 pacientes con AA intervenidos quirúrgicamente (53.6 % del sexo femenino), edad media de 42.5 años, 15 (11.7 %) tenían diagnóstico de VIH, 47 (36.7 %) de DM2 y 66 (51.6 %) no cursaban con otra enfermedad. La proporción de leucocitosis fue menor en el grupo con VIH (66.7 %; p = 0.007). En los pacientes con VIH y DM2 se registró mayor tiempo de evolución: 66.9 ± 61.2y 90.1 ± 144 horas (p ≤ 0.001), mayor tiempo de estancia hospitalaria: 11.1 ± 17.1 y 6.5 ± 4.1 días (p ≤ 0.0001), mayor tasa de complicaciones: 20 y 23.8 % (p = 0.036). La complicación más frecuente fue la infección del sitio quirúrgico superficial y profunda. La hemicolectomía derecha fue más frecuente en el grupo con VIH (20 %, p = 0.017). No se registró mortalidad. CONCLUSIONES: La inmunodepresión afecta el curso clínico y evolución de la AA. INTRODUCTION: Immunocompromised patients experience limited inflammatory response, which can delay acute appendicitis (AA) diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To assess if immunosuppression can affect AA clinical course and evolution. METHOD: Comparative, retrospective analysis of patients with HIV or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) or with no other pathology who underwent appendectomy for AA. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients with AA who were surgically intervened were assessed (53.6% were of the female gender); mean age was 42.5 years, 15 (11.7%) had been diagnosed with HIV infection, 47 (36.7%) with DM2 and 66 (51.6%) had no other disease. The proportion of leukocytosis was lower in the HIV group (66.7%; p = 0.007). Patients with HIV and DM2 had longer evolution time (HIV 66.9 ± 61.2, DM2 90.1 ± 144 hours; p ≤ 0.001), longer hospital length of stay (HIV 11.1 ± 17.1, DM2 6.5 ± 4.1 days; p ≤ 0.0001), and a higher rate of complications (HIV 20%, DM2 23.8%; p = 0.036). The most common complication was superficial and deep surgical site infection. Right hemicolectomy was more common in the HIV group (20%; p = 0.017). There was no mortality registered. CONCLUSIONS: Immunosuppression affects AA clinical course and evolution.

Objective and subjective results following implantation of the FineVision trifocal intraocular lens in Mexican patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate objective and subjective results after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in a Mexican population. METHODS: Prospective, interventional case series involved 15 cataract surgery patients who underwent bilateral implantation of the trifocal Micro F lens FineVision IOL (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). Objective analysis involved assessment of monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), near (UNVA) at 30 and 40 cm, and intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 50, 60, and 70 cm, preoperatively, and at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6. Higher-order aberrations were assessed via aberrometry. Contrast sensitivity was determined via modulation transfer function. Subjective outcomes were assessed using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25). RESULTS: At postoperative month 6, mean monocular UDVA was 0.06 ± 0.11 logMAR, and UNVA was 0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR at 30 cm and 0.05 ± 0.08 logMAR at 40 cm. Mean UIVA at 50, 60, and 70 cm was 0.12 ± 0.06, 0.13 ± 0.08, and 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively. Spherical equivalent at postoperative month 3 was 0.23 ± 0.4 diopters (D). Aberrometry revealed a mean RMS of 0.18 microm and PSF of 0.19 (Strehl ratio). VFQ-25 questionnaire results showed a mean score of 93.64 ± 4.19 points (maximum 100 points). Vision during distance and near activities was reported as "excellent." Adverse events were reported as occurring "never to occasionally." CONCLUSION: Implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL in a Mexican population appears safe and effective, both objectively and subjectively. Good uncorrected visual acuity outcomes were achieved at far, near, and intermediate distances. Overall patient satisfaction was excellent.