Enhanced Monofocal Versus Conventional Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare different outcomes of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) versus a conventional monofocal IOL implantation after cataract surgery. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline was used for abstracting data and assessing quality. Comparative studies between enhanced monofocal versus conventional monofocal IOL implantations reporting outcomes in monocular and binocular visual acuities at various distances, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity, optical quality, and adverse effects were identified from three databases. Meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 680 eyes implanted with an enhanced monofocal IOL (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00; Johnson & Johnson) and 647 eyes with a conventional monofocal IOL from 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 comparative studies were included. The enhanced monofocal IOL showed better monocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) (mean difference [MD]: -0.11 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.09), binocular UIVA (MD: -0.17 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.11), and binocular uncorrected near visual acuity performance (MD: -0.17 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.04) than the conventional monofocal IOL. More patients were spectacle free at intermediate distance with the enhanced monofocal IOL (odds ratio: 12.9; 95% CI: 6.2 to 27.0). Both monocular (MD: -0.002 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01) and binocular (MD: 0.01 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.03) uncorrected distance visual acuity revealed non-significant differences between the IOL designs. Contrast sensitivity, photic phenomenon, and adverse effects were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced monofocal IOLs effectively improved unaided intermediate vision with similar distance performance relative to conventional monofocal IOLs. This was achieved without compromising the contrast sensitivity or inducing photic phenomena. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(8):538-546.].

Transepithelial corneal collagen cross-linking using iontophoresis versus the Dresden protocol in progressive keratoconus: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standard epithelium-off collagen cross-linking using Dresden protocol (S-CXL) is the standard of care for progressive keratoconus. Despite its efficacy, epithelial debridement is associated with pain, delayed visual rehabilitation, stromal oedema and haze. Minimising these complications while achieving a comparable efficacy remains an unmet need. METHODS: Comparative studies between transepithelial iontophoresis-assisted CXL (I-CXL) and S-CXL reporting the outcomes of visual, refractive, topographic, aberrometry, demarcation line, endothelial cell density, confocal microscopy or complications were identified from databases. Assessments of publication bias, meta-analyses, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regressions were performed. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, 586 eyes from three randomised controlled trials and seven comparative studies were analysed. No differences were found in the change in uncorrected/corrected distance visual acuities, mean/maximum keratometry, central corneal thickness, higher order aberration, spherical aberration, coma, subbasal nerve/anterior stromal keratocyte density and demarcation line depth in both CXL protocols (P ≥ .052). However, I-CXL resulted in less thinning at the minimum pachymetry (standardised mean difference 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.44). More importantly, there was a significant reduction in complications following I-CXL (odds ratio 0.30; 95% CI 0.12-0.75). Meta-regression analyses on demarcation line depth and complication suggested that I-CXL was more effective than S-CXL when baseline maximum keratometry was >55.2 D and the risk of complication was independent of other baseline covariates. CONCLUSION: I-CXL has a more favourable safety profile, as evidenced by the available literature, with less thinning at the minimum pachymetry and reduced risk of complications while achieving comparable effects on visual, refractive, topographic, aberrometry, and morphological outcomes as S-CXL.

Management of cytomegalovirus corneal endotheliitis.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) can manifest as corneal endotheliitis in immunocompetent individuals. Early diagnosis is prudent to prevent endothelial cell loss, which could ultimately lead to corneal decompensation. CMV DNA was first detected in an eye with corneal endotheliitis in 2006; since then, clinical evidence from numerous case reports and case series have accumulated. MAIN TEXT: In this narrative review, we identified several drugs, including ganciclovir, valganciclovir, and their combination in oral, intravenous, intravitreal, and topical forms in different concentrations, together with the judicious use of topical steroids, have reported variable success. There has yet to be any prospective comparative study evaluating the efficacy and safety of these assorted forms of treatment; clinical evidence is based on case reports and case series. CMV endotheliitis presenting with corneal edema can masquerade as other corneal diseases and thus poses a great challenge especially in post-keratoplasty eyes. Heightened awareness is needed before and after keratoplasty to start prompt prophylaxis and treatment. CONCLUSION: There is no consensus on the management of CMV endotheliitis. Further studies are much needed to elucidate the optimal treatment modality, regime, and duration in the treatment and prophylaxis of CMV endotheliitis.

Dry Eyes After SMILE.

Dry eyes is one of the most common complications after laser vision correction. Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) is a flapless procedure with a smaller corneal incision, less corneal nerves are transected during, making it theoretically less prone to dry eyes. Both SMILE and femtosecond-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) induce a transient worsening in dry eye parameters, but there is evidence showing that SMILE holds promises to have fewer negative impacts on the ocular surface parameters and allow an earlier recovery. SMILE-treated eyes may also have shown less corneal denervation and better corneal sensitivity compared with FS-LASIK eyes. This review summarizes the mechanisms of dry eyes after laser vision correction, the short-term (≤6 months) and long-term (>6 months) results in changes to dry eyes signs and symptoms, and corneal sensitivity of SMILE, as compared with FS-LASIK. Limitation of the studies and reasons accounting for their discrepancies will be discussed. Future randomized controlled trials with standardized postoperative regime are needed for better evaluation of dry eyes after SMILE.