[Outcomes of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses implantation]. / Rezul'tat implantatsii intraokulyarnykh linz s rasshirennoi glubinoi fokusa.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced monofocal IOLs, post-cataract surgery through a network meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from the past 5 years. Parameters such as binocular visual acuities, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and optical quality were used to evaluate efficacy and safety. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17.0 software. RESULTS: Twenty-eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comprising 2465 subjects were included. Trifocal IOLs exhibited superior uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) compared to monofocal IOLs (MD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22). Both trifocal (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOLs group MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.06) and EDOF IOLs (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.09) showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) than monofocal IOLs. Trifocal IOLs ranked highest in spectacle independence at various distances (AT LISAtri 839MP group: SUCRA 97.5% for distance, 80.7% for intermediate; AcrySof IQ PanOptix group: SUCRA 83.0% for near). CONCLUSIONS: For cataract patients who want to treat presbyopia, trifocal IOLs demonstrated better visual acuity and spectacle independence at near distances. Different types of trifocal IOL characteristics differ. EDOF and enhanced monofocal IOLs have improved visual quality at intermediate distances.Therefore, It is very important to select the appropriate IOLs based on the lens characteristics and patient needs.

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantations of three types of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses that have undergone corneal refractive surgery.

This prospective, non-randomized, comparative study aimed to compare the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantations of three presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) after myopic refractive surgery. It was conducted from January 2020 to December 2021 in Shanghai Heping Eye Hospital. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of IOL implanted. The visual acuity, refractive stability, high-order aberrations, objective visual quality, spectacle independence, and visual function index 14 questionnaire scores of the three groups were compared. This study included 78 eyes of 39 patients: 26 eyes with 839MP, 26 eyes with MF30, and 26 eyes with ZXR00. Uncorrected distance visual acuity improved significantly for all three groups. For a pupil diameter of 4.0 mm, the spherical aberrations of the three groups were 0.33 ± 0.16 µ, 0.50 ± 0.08 µ, and 0.39 ± 0.10 µ, respectively. The spectacle independence for distance vision was over 90% in each group; for near vision, it was only 25% for the ZXR00 group. All three types of presbyopia-correcting IOLs improved visual quality in post-LASIK or PRK patients. However, the high incidence of photic phenomena after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation in patients who have undergone myopic LASIK should not be neglected.

Comparison of Two Presbyopia-Correcting Trifocal Intraocular Lenses: A Prospective Study.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical results of a new trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with sinusoidal design by comparing with a traditional trifocal IOL. Materials and Methods: A total of 79 patients undergoing uneventful microincisional cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of one of two types of trifocal IOLs, the Acriva Trinova IOL (VSY) or Acrysof IQ PanOptix IOL (Alcon), were enrolled in this prospective study. Visual and refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity (CS), and defocus curve were assessed at 3 months after surgery. Patient satisfaction and incidence of photic phenomena were also evaluated. Results: The number of patients/eyes were 48/96 in the Trinova group and 31/62 in the PanOptix group. There were no significant differences between the groups for monocular and binocular corrected/uncorrected distance or intermediate (at 60 cm) and near visual acuities (VA) postoperatively. The Trinova group had statistically significantly better intermediate VA at 80 cm than the PanOptix group (p<0.05). The CS results of both groups were within the normal limits. In the binocular defocus curve of both IOLs, we observed a peak of good VA at 0.0 diopters defocus and a useful wide range for intermediate distances. The incidence of photic phenomena in the Trinova group was lower at postoperative 1 month (p<0.05) but this difference disappeared at 3 months. A total of 47 patients (97.9%) in the Trinova group and 30 patients (96.7%) in the PanOptix group stated that they would recommend the same IOL. Conclusion: Both trifocal IOLs provide good visual quality outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Clinical performance after implantation of an EDOF intraocular lens in the dominant eye and a presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens in the nondominant eye.

PURPOSE: To evaluate subjective and objective outcomes after combined implantation of an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a combined technology multifocal lens (CT-IOL). SETTING: 2 clinical practices (Carolina Eyecare Physicians, Center For Sight) in the United States. DESIGN: Prospective, unmasked, multicenter, nonrandomized bilateral eye study. METHODS: Patients interested in reducing their dependence on spectacles were implanted with an EDOF IOL in the dominant eye and a CT-IOL in the nondominant eye. Refractive and visual acuity (VA) data at various distances (4 m, 66 cm, 40 cm, and 33 cm) were collected 3 months postsurgery, along with the distance-corrected binocular defocus curve and responses to questionnaires related to spectacle independence, visual disturbances, and overall visual function. RESULTS: Data from 37 participants were analyzed. The distance-corrected binocular defocus curve showed a mean VA better than 0.1 logMAR (20/25) at all vergences from +1.00 to -2.50 diopters (D). 36 participants (97%) had an uncorrected binocular VA of 0.3 logMAR or better, at all test distances. 70% of participants (26/37) reported never wearing spectacles at any distance, and 84% (31/37) were "completely" or "mostly" satisfied with their overall vision after surgery. Halos were the disturbance reported most frequently and reported as most bothersome, with difficulty driving at night the most common visual function issue. Difficulty reading was the next most reported issue. Overall eyesight was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 92% (34/37) of participants. CONCLUSIONS: This combined EDOF/CT-IOL approach was well-tolerated by participants and provided some potential benefits relative to bilateral implantation of either lens.

A comparative study of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses combining bifocal and extended depth-of-focus profiles.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the visual performance of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) that combine both bifocal and extended depth-of-focus profiles, Artis® Symbiose® Plus (Symbiose Plus; Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) and Tecnis® Synergy® (Synergy; Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA). METHODS: The medical records of patients with cataract bilaterally implanted with either Symbiose Plus or Synergy between January 2022 and January 2023 were assessed. The principal measures of postoperative findings included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near (40 and 33 cm) visual acuity (UNVA), objective optical quality (OOQ) parameters, distance-corrected defocus curve analysis, and surveys of subjective satisfaction. RESULTS: Total of 96 eyes from 48 patients were enrolled. Each group was equally composed of 24 patients, 48 eyes. There were no significant differences between the two groups on baseline characteristics. Both IOLs displayed excellent binocular UDVA, CDVA, and UNVA (40 and 33 cm) with no statistical difference (p = 0.467(UDVA), p = 0.584(CDVA), p = 0.096(40-cm UNVA), and p = 0.621(33-cm UNVA)). However, with regard to UIVA, the Synergy group showed significantly superior results (p < 0.001). In contrast, the Symbiose Plus group showed significantly better results on OOQ parameters and patient-reported quality of vision survey outcomes (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs provided a decent continuous range of vision from near to far distance.

Characterizing glare effects associated with diffractive optics in presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To objectively quantify glare of intraocular lenses (IOLs) using a diffractive principle to extend the visual range and to identify models with increased susceptibility to inducing glare. SETTING: David J Apple Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany. DESIGN: Laboratory investigation. METHODS: Glare was assessed by means of a straylight parameter with a standard C-Quant intended for 7 degrees. In addition, 2 C-Quant modifications were used to test lower angles (ie, 2.5 degrees and 3.5 degrees). The following IOL models were assessed: PanOptix, AT Lisa Tri, Synergy, and Triumf, the latter 2 with chromatic aberration correction at distance. Straylight from trifocal IOLs was compared against a monofocal W-60R lens. The C-Quant test was performed through the studied IOLs by using additional optical components attached to their ocular. RESULTS: Straylight (deg 2 sr -1 ) of the control was <1 at all tested angles, with the trifocal models showing comparable straylight at 7 degrees. At 3.5 degrees, Triumf's straylight increased to 15.5 ± 0.6, followed by Synergy (6.2 ± 1.1), PanOptix (4.1 ± 0.3), and AT Lisa Tri (2.0 ± 0.8). The chromatic aberration-correcting models demonstrated correspondingly higher straylight (Synergy: 18.8 ± 1.3; Triumf: 17.3 ± 0.5) at 2.5 degrees compared with PanOptix (4.3 ± 0.4), AT Lisa Tri (2.1 ± 0.1), and monofocal IOLs yielding minimal or no increase. CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal IOLs induced increased straylight, but it was limited to lower angles, which may cause difficulties detecting these effects using a standard clinical approach. The latest IOL designs featuring chromatic aberration correction at far focus seem more susceptible than the established trifocal IOLs to inducing a glare phenomenon.

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.].

Cataract surgery after corneal refractive surgery: preoperative considerations and management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Corneal refractive surgery (CRS) is one of the most popular eye procedures, with more than 40 million cases performed globally. As CRS-treated patients age and develop cataract, the number of cases that require additional preoperative considerations and management will increase around the world. Thus, we provide an up-to-date, concise overview of the considerations and outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes with previous CRS, including surface ablation, laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). RECENT FINDINGS: Challenges associated with accurate biometry in eyes with CRS have been mitigated recently through total keratometry, ray tracing, intraoperative aberrometry, and machine learning assisted intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas to improve prediction. Emerging studies have highlighted the superior performance of ray tracing and/or total keratometry-based formulas for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous SMILE. Dry eye remains a common side effect after cataract surgery, especially in eyes with CRS, though the risk appears to be lower after SMILE than LASIK (in the short-term). Recent presbyopia-correcting IOL designs such as extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs may be suitable in carefully selected eyes with previous CRS. SUMMARY: Ophthalmologists will increasingly face challenges associated with the surgical management of cataract in patients with prior CRS. Careful preoperative assessment of the ocular surface, appropriate use of IOL power calculation formulas, and strategies for presbyopia correction are key to achieve good clinical and refractive outcomes and patient satisfaction. Recent advances in CRS techniques, such as SMILE, may pose new challenges for such eyes in the future.

Pilocarpine HCl 1.25% for treatment of presbyopia after laser vision correction: pooled analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials (GEMINI 1 and 2).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of topical pilocarpine HCl 1.25% (Pilo) in treating presbyopia in individuals with or without a history of laser vision correction (laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis [LASIK] or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK]). SETTING: Multiple clinical sites. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 2 identically designed prospective, randomized, vehicle-controlled studies (GEMINI 1 and 2). METHODS: Adults aged 40 to 55 years with presbyopia received once-daily Pilo or vehicle bilaterally for 30 days. Responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) were determined on day 30. RESULTS: Among participants with a history of LASIK/PRK (n = 39 in the Pilo group, n = 41 in the vehicle group), responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in DCNVA on day 30 at hours 0.25, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10, respectively, were 16.7%, 38.9%, 41.7%, 37.8%, 16.2%, 13.9%, and 8.3% with Pilo and 0.0%, 2.6%, 10.5%, 5.1%, 7.7%, 2.6%, and 0.0% with vehicle. Responder rates in the LASIK/PRK subgroup were significantly higher with Pilo than vehicle at hours 0.25 ( P = .0087), 0.5 ( P = .0001), 1 ( P = .0022), and 3 ( P = .0005). In contrast, there were no significant differences in responder rates between Pilo-treated participants with and without LASIK/PRK. Among non-LASIK/PRK participants in the Pilo group (n = 336), responder rates for ≥3-line improvement in DCNVA on day 30 at hours 0.25, 0.5, 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10, respectively, were 16.8%, 32.7%, 39.0%, 28.0%, 17.4%, 12.6%, and 10.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Pilo treatment effectively and similarly improved DCNVA in presbyopes with or without a history of laser vision correction.

Outcomes and predictive factors in multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Options for addressing presbyopia with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have become more varied and sophisticated. We reviewed recent literature on multifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs in order to provide insight on their respective advantages, with emphasis on the visual outcomes of each design. RECENT FINDINGS: Increased patient age, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) abnormalities, abnormal optical axis measurements, and better preoperative visual acuity have been implicated as predictors of worse postoperative vision or visual quality in multifocal IOLs. Despite differences in objective outcomes, patient-reported outcomes such as satisfaction are consistently similar between multifocal and EDOF IOLs. EDOFs may have slightly lower rates of spectacle independence than trifocals, but there is more support for their use in the setting of with other ocular conditions. SUMMARY: Multifocal and EDOF IOLs are both viable options for patients who wish to preserve near vision. Given their similar objective performance in many aspects, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on their expectations and visual requirements is critical to postoperative satisfaction. Evidence for advanced technology IOL implantation in pediatric patients remains inconclusive.

RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT AFTER INITIATION OF PILOCARPINE HYDROCHLORIDE OPHTHALMIC SOLUTION 1.25% FOR TREATMENT OF PRESBYOPIA.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Retinal detachment has previously been reported in association with topical miotic use for the treatment of glaucoma. Pilocarpine hydrochloride 1.25% was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of presbyopia, with no reports of associated retinal detachments in the clinical trial data. METHODS: Case report. RESULTS: Two novel cases of unilateral retinal detachment occurring within 10 days of the initiation of pilocarpine 1.25% for the treatment of presbyopia were described. The patients were pseudophakic men in their 60s or 70s with preexisting retinal detachment risk factors, such as high myopia, lattice degeneration, and prior retinal detachment. Both affected eyes were treated with pars plana vitrectomy and gas endotamponade with an uncomplicated postoperative course. CONCLUSION: Retinal detachment may be associated with the use of pilocarpine 1.25%. Caution should be used when considering prescribing this medication in patients with preexisting retinal abnormality.

Comparison of Patients With Emmetropia and Presbyopia and Different Accommodation Who Undergo Unilateral or Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal IOL.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and satisfaction in patients with emmetropia, presbyopia, and greater or lesser residual accommodation who undergo unilateral or bilateral implantation of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: A multicenter, multisurgeon study was performed to evaluate outcomes in patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who underwent refractive lens exchange followed by implantation of a FineVision trifocal IOL (PhysIOL). The inclusion criteria were as follows: emmetropia, sphere -0.25 to +0.50 diopters (D), cylinder less than 0.75 D, and manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -0.25 to +0.25 D. All patients also had to have an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of Snellen 0.9 or better in each eye. The sample was divided into different clusters based on two variables: eyes operated on (monocular or binocular) and age either younger than 55 years or 55 years or older. Thus, four possible groups were created. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 690 eyes from 431 patients were evaluated. There was no difference in postoperative uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity between the groups. Binocular uncorrected near vision (UNVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes regardless of age (median [interquartile range]: 0.00 [0.00; 0.10] vs 0.10 [0.00; 0.10] logMAR; P < .001). Binocular uncorrected intermediate vision (UIVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes aged younger than 55 years than in those who underwent surgery in one eye aged 55 years or older (median [interquartile range]: 0.18 [0.10; 0.18] vs 0.30 [0.18; 0.30] logMAR; P < .001). The efficacy and safety indexes were 0.98 ± 0.09 and 1.01 ± 0.06, respectively. A total of 93.3% of eyes were within the 0.50 D range in postoperative MRSE. Visual dysphotopsia was worse in patients with both eyes operated on, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that after refractive lens exchange, patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who received a trifocal IOL in one or both eyes achieved good UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA. Regarding near binocular visual acuity, results were better for patients who underwent surgery on both eyes than for those who underwent surgery on one eye. Regarding binocular intermediate visual acuity, patients aged younger than 55 years with both lenses replaced had better results than those 55 years or older with only one lens replaced. However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA or patient satisfaction. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(12):817-824.].

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.

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty combined with presbyopia-correcting and toric intraocular lenses - a narrative review.

Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is the leading indication for EK and may coexist with cataract and presbyopia. Notably, the outcomes of phacoemulsification in FECD patients are not as favorable as those in eyes without this condition. Historically, only monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) were recommended for these patients. However, recent reports have described the implantation of Premium-IOLs (such as Multifocal IOLs, Enhanced Depth of Focus IOLs, and Toric IOLs) in FECD eyes undergoing cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). While the results are encouraging, they are not as optimal as those from unoperated eyes, especially when comparing simultaneous procedures to sequential ones. It's advised to perform the DMEK first to improve the accuracy of IOL calculations. Still, even successfully operated eyes may experience secondary graft failure or graft rejection after DMEK. The success rate of a secondary DMEK is typically lower than that of the initial procedure. Furthermore, if the postoperative thickness after DMEK is less than anticipated, laser enhancements might not be an option. There's a pressing need for more controlled and randomized clinical trials to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of Premium-IOLs for FECD eyes. This narrative review aims to collate evidence on the use of Premium IOL technologies in eyes receiving EK and to underscore key points for surgeons performing EK combined with cataract surgery.

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.].

Standard Clinical Outcomes, Light Distortion, Stereopsis, and a Quality-of-Life Assessment of a New Binocular System of Complementary IOLs.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual outcome, light distortion index (LDI), and quality of life (QoL) of patients implanted with two complementary intraocular lenses (IOLs) to treat cataract and presbyopia. METHODS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients with cataract were treated with the implantation of the Artis Symbiose Mid (Mid) IOL (Cristalens Industrie) in the distance-dominant eye and the Artis Symbiose Plus (Plus) IOL (Cristalens Industrie) in the contralateral eye following phacoemulsification. The primary objective was to ascertain the monocular and binocular defocus curves. Secondary endpoints included uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity at 90 and 70 cm, uncorrected near visual acuity and distance-corrected visual acuity at 40 cm, contrast sensitivity, LDI with a halometer, stereopsis, and patients' QoL with the validated Visual Function Index (VF-14) questionnaire. These measurements were collected in two visits, at 4.14 ± 3.13 and 10.30 ± 3.14 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in the monocular defocus curves were found at the defocus steps of -1.00, -1.25, -1.50, -1.75, -2.50, -2.75, -3.00, -3.50 diopters and the -4.00 diopters (P < .050). The mean binocular defocus curve was 0 logMAR or better from the +0.50 to the -2.50 D defocus steps. Contrast sensitivity was within normal values. The LDI was 12.57 (6.61)% for the Mid eyes, 14.99 ± 5.70% for the Plus eyes, and 10.36 ± 4.42% binocularly. The patients' stereopsis was 40.0 (12.5) arc-seconds. The QoL score was 95.99 (7.14) at 10 months. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of the Artis Symbiose IOLs was a safe and effective treatment for presbyopia compensation in patients with cataract. Both IOLs are complementary and may produce a binocular depth-of-field of 3.00 diopters over 0 logMAR when used together. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(10):654-661.].

['I don't want readers': options for treatment of presbyopia]. / 'Ik wil geen leesbril, wat nu?'.

Presbyopia is farsightedness of old-age. Due to lenticular stiffness, decreased accommodative range, and decreased ciliary muscle function, the ability to see up close diminishes with age. Clinically this means people will need reading glasses. Cataract surgery is the most performed and successful surgery to improve patients' visual acuity. Currently there are many possibilities of solving presbyopia during cataract surgery. This can be achieved by using premium implant lenses, which are lenses that have more than one focus, enabling freedom from spectacles postoperatively. These premium lenses allow vision at the near, intermediate and distance foci, decreasing dependence on optical aids. In this article we will explain the options, and patients' suitability for these solutions and will briefly outline the ins and outs of presbyopia correcting surgery.