Extended Depth of Focus Versus Trifocal for Intraocular Lens Implantation: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the extended depth of focus (EDOF) vs trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients undergoing IOL implantation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to include studies comparing EDOF vs trifocal IOLs. Refraction and visual acuity were primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included defocus curves, intraocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity (CS), quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire score, haloes and glare, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies enrolling 2200 eyes were identified. Trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in sphere (mean difference [MD] = -0.23; P = .001) and spherical equivalence (MD = -0.11, P = .0001) compared to EDOF IOL. No difference was observed in cylinder (MD = -0.03, P = .25) or astigmatism. Trifocal IOL had superior near visual acuity outcomes, namely uncorrected near visual acuity (MD = 0.12, P < .00001) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (MD = 0.12, P = .002). Postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (MD = -0.01, P = .01) was significantly improved for the EDOF group, although no difference was noted in postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (MD = 0.00, P = .84), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (MD = 0.01, P = .68) or distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (MD = -0.01, P = .39). Defocus curve favored trifocal IOLs at near vision and EDOF IOLs at intermediate vision. Ocular aberration, CS, haloes (odds ratio = 0.64, P = .10), glare, and patient satisfaction were not statistically significant between the groups. The trifocal IOL was associated with an improved QoV questionnaire score (MD = 1.24, P = 0.03) and spectacle independence (odds ratio = 0.26, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal IOLs improved uncorrected near visual acuity compared to EDOF IOLs. Uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuity, halos, and glare were not statistically different between both groups.

Muller's muscle conjunctival resection versus external levator advancement for ptosis repair: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of Muller's muscle conjunctival resection (MMCR) versus external levator advancement (ELA) in patients undergoing ptosis surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, and a search of electronic information was conducted to identify all comparative studies of MMCR versus ELA in ptosis repair. The primary outcome measures were the post-operative marginal reflex distance (MRD1), ptosis under-correction, over-correction, and re-operation rate. Secondary outcome measures included cosmetic appearance, complications, operative time, and learning curve. Fixed-effect modelling was used for the analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies that enrolled 1038 eyelids were identified in the literature. There was no statistically significant difference between the MMCR and ELA groups in post-operative MRD1 (Mean Difference [MD] = 0.13, P = 0.28) and the rate of under-correction odds ratio [OR] = 0.49, P = 0.14). However, ELA had a significantly higher rate of over-correction (OR = 0.17, P = 0.04) and re-operations (OR = 0.26, P = 0.0001) compared to MMCR. For secondary outcomes, MMCR had an improved cosmetic appearance, lower total number of complications and shorter operation time (MD = - 10.96, P < 0.00001). Finally, the two techniques had no significant difference in the learning curves. CONCLUSION: Both MMCR and ELA are effective techniques for the surgical correction of ptosis; however, MMCR surgery is a more predictable and robust technique compared to, ELA with lower rates of over-correction and re-operation.