Prospective comparative study of tolerance to refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population

Background: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of extended depth of focus (EDOF) and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) that share identical aspheric platform and compare their visual acuity tolerance to postoperative refractive errors. Methods: This non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 120 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of either Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 60 eyes of 30 patients) or Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (EDOF group: 60 eyes of 30 patients). Monocular and binocular visual outcomes, changes in refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and perception of photic phenomena (Halo & Glare Simulator; Eyeland Design Network, Vreden, Germany) were evaluated 3 months postoperatively. To compare the refractive tolerance, each group was divided into three subgroups according to the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent (SE). Results: In the EDOF group, the mean 3-months postoperative monocular UDVA, intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were 0.03 ± 0.07, 0.09 ± 0.15, and 0.24 ± 0.16 logMAR, respectively. A total of 100, 96.55, and 68.97% of eyes in the EDOF group achieved binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA values of 0.20 logMAR or better, respectively. In respect to refractive tolerance, the EDOF group showed higher SE values and statistically significantly better mean UDVA than the monofocal group in all subgroups, with UDVA of − 0.013 and 0.028 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.037), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within ±0.50 D, UDVA of 0.004 and 0.048 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.046), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within − 1.00 D, and UDVA of 0.020 and 0.083 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.026), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was more than − 1.00 D. The mean patient satisfaction scores for spectacle-free distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were 86.0, 85.0, and 66.0, respectively. Conclusions: The EDOF IOL provided excellent postoperative visual outcomes in far and intermediate distances, with high patient satisfaction rate. Regarding the postoperative refractive tolerance to SE, the Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better tolerance to residual postoperative refractive error than the monofocal IOL with the same material and optical platform

In vitro optical quality measurements of three intraocular lens models having identical platform

Background: With recent advances in technology and introduction of new intraocular lens (IOL) models, surgeons today have the opportunity to choose from various optical designs, which can influence the postoperative quality of vision. In our laboratory study, we compared the optical quality of three different IOLs that use the identical platform and are produced by the same manufacturer. The study included two diffractive multifocal IOLs, a bifocal and a trifocal one, as well as a monofocal IOL. Methods: Three IOL models: monofocal CT ASPHINA 409 M, diffractive bifocal AT LISA 809 M, and diffractive trifocal AT LISA Tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) were assessed for optical quality by measuring modulation transfer function (MTF) and Strehl Ratio (SR) values at pupil sizes of 3.0 and 4.5 mm on the OptiSpheric® IOL PRO (Trioptics GmbH, Germany). The United States Air Force (USAF) Target images were also recorded to comfirm the optical performance qualitatively. Results: For far focus at 50 lp/mm and 3.0 mm pupil size, MTF value of the monofocal lens (MTF = 0.798) was 1.8-fold and 2.1-fold better than the bifocal (MTF = 0.446) and the trifocal (MTF = 0.382) IOLs, respectively. For near focus, bifocal IOL (MTF = 0.265) was 1.4-fold better than trifocal IOL (MTF = 0.187), while for intermediate focus, the trifocal IOL (MTF = 0.148) was 1.7-fold better than the bifocal IOL (MTF = 0.086). For the same pupil size, total sum of light loss amounted to 5.2% for the monofocal, 16.0% for the bifocal and 6.0% for the trifocal IOL. For a larger pupil, the amount of light loss increased significantly for the multifocal IOLs. Conclusions: The monofocal IOL performed the best for far, the bifocal IOL for near and the trifocal IOL for intermediate focus. While the monofocal IOL created the least amount of light loss for both pupil sizes, the trifocal IOL created less than half the amount of light loss than the bifocal IOL for small pupil. For large pupil, however, less light scatter was observed for the bifocal than the trifocal IOL

Comparative analysis of in vitro accelerated glistening formation in foldable hydrophobic intraocular lenses

Purpose!#!To analyse and compare the propensity to form glistenings in 4 different types of hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs): Alcon AcrySof ® MA60AC, HOYA iSert® PC-60AD, Bausch&Lomb enVista, and Kowa Avansee™ PU6A.!##!Methods!#!We used an accelerated laboratory method to create glistenings. IOLs were first immersed in saline at 45 °C for 24 h and then at 37 °C for 2.5 h. Microvacuole (MV) density and size were documented and calculated using an image analysis program.!##!Results!#!Median density of glistenings [MV/mm!##!Conclusions!#!Glistenings could be induced in all studied IOLs using the accelerated laboratory method. The Alcon AcrySof ® MA60AC and HOYA iSert® PC-60AD IOLs showed MV of high density, while the glistenings in the Hoya IOLs were smaller in size compared to the Alcon IOLs. The MV density was minimal in the Bausch&Lomb enVista and Kowa Avansee™ PU6A IOLs. The propensity of the Alcon AcrySof ® MA60AC IOLs to form glistenings in vitro correlated with the findings of clinical results that are already published

Laboratory analysis and ray visualization of diffractive optics with enhanced intermediate vision

Background!#!To assess the optical behavior of a new diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and compare its performance to that of an established extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL.!##!Methods!#!This study assessed the Proming EDOF Multifocal AM2UX [Eyebright Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China] and the AT LARA 829MP [Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany]. An experimental set-up with 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic light (532 nm) was used to visualize the IOLs' ray propagation. In addition, the optical quality of the IOLs was assessed by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at 50lp/mm and 3.0 and 4.5 mm apertures on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II [Trioptics GmbH, Germany].!##!Results!#!The ray propagation of the two IOLs showed two distinct foci. Light intensity assessment revealed that both IOLs allocate more energy to primary than secondary focus. At 3.0 mm pupil, the MTF values at 50lp/mm for the primary focus were 0.39 and 0.37, and for the secondary focus, 0.29 and 0.26 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively. At 4.5 mm pupil, the single-frequency MTF for the primary focus was 0.51 and 0.24 and for the secondary focus 0.21 and 0.15 for the AT LARA and Proming IOLs, respectively.!##!Conclusions!#!When tested with an aberration-free model cornea under monochromatic conditions, the Proming behaved as a low-add bifocal lens; however, its properties did not differ much from the well-established AT LARA EDOF IOL. The AT LARA outperformed the Proming at low defocus (up to 2D), while the latter demonstrated better image quality in the 2-3D range

In-vitro glistening formation in six different foldable hydrophobic intraocular lenses

Background!#!Glistenings describe small, refractile microvacuoles that may arise within the intraocular lens (IOL) material and reduce the patients' quality of vision. Lenses composed of hydrophobic acrylic material are particularly affected by glistening formation. In this study, we compared the tendency of glistening formation in six different types of hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs).!##!Methods!#!We used a well-established accelerated laboratory method to develop glistenings in the following IOLs: Vivinex XY1 (Hoya), AcrySof SN60WF (Alcon), Tecnis ZCB00 (AMO), Avansee PN6A (Kowa), Aktis SP NS-60YG (Nidek), and CT Lucia 601P (Zeiss). IOLs were first immersed in saline at 45 °C for 24 h and then at 37 °C for 2.5 h in a water bath. Microvacuole (MV) density and size (Miyata grading) were documented and calculated using an image analysis program.!##!Results!#!The mean glistening density [MV/mm!##!Conclusions!#!While all tested IOLs showed glistenings with the accelerated laboratory method, the Aktis and SN60WF showed the highest microvacuole density, followed by the CT Lucia. In comparison, the Vivinex, Tecnis, and Avansee IOLs showed far fewer number of glistenings

Ray propagation imaging and optical quality evaluation of different intraocular lens models.

PURPOSE:Ray propagation visualization and optical performance analysis of four different intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS:In this laboratory study, four IOLs with different optical designs were assessed: a monofocal AcrySof IQ SN60WF [Alcon], a diffractive-refractive bifocal AcrySof IQ Restor SN6AD1 [Alcon], a diffractive trifocal AcrySof IQ PanOptix TFNT00 [Alcon], and a diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) Symfony ZXR00 [Johnson&Johnson]. An experimental set-up with a water bath containing 0.01% fluorescein solution and monochromatic green laser light (532 nm) was used to visualize the propagation of light rays. Also, the optical performance of the IOLs was evaluated by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF) values at a pupil sizes of 3.0 and 4.5 mm on the optical bench OptiSpheric® IOL PRO II (Trioptics GmbH, Germany). RESULTS:Both the diffractive-refractive bifocal IOL and the EDOF IOL showed two defined foci for distance and near vision. In the diffractive trifocal IOL, three distinct foci for distance, intermediate, and near vision could be visualized. CONCLUSIONS:The ray propagation visualization technique allows a qualitative assessment and comparison of light energy distribution between different IOL models. The measured Through-Focus Response (TFR) quantitatively confirmed the evaluated ray propagation behavior

Bilateral trifocal IOL implantation in a pediatric case of cataract following steroid-therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Purpose: To present the case of a 9-year-old child with bilateral posterior subcapsular cataract developed through steroid treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cataract surgery with trifocal intraocular lens implantation was performed in both eyes. Observations: Uncorrected distance visual acuity increased from +0.3 and + 0.4 logMAR preoperatively to 0.00 and + 0.04 logMAR after surgery. Binocular uncorrected values for intermediate and near visual acuity were −0.04 logMAR and 0.02 logMAR after surgery, respectively. The patient did not report side effects like halos or glare and was able to participate in his daily activities (school and sports) without spectacles. Conclusions and Importance: This report represents the first description of a bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses in a pediatric cataract case with restoration of visual function in far, intermediate and near distance. Trifocal intraocular lenses to compensate for the loss of accommodation can be an option in selected cases of children with cataract. Keywords: Pediatric cataract surgery, Trifocal IOL, Leukemia, Steroid-induced catarac

Correction: Ray propagation imaging and optical quality evaluation of different intraocular lens models.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228342.]

Aesthetics of iris reconstruction with a custom-made artificial iris prosthesis.

Patients with large iris defects not only suffer from functional disadvantages but also from aesthetic limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the aesthetic outcome of iris reconstruction using an artificial iris (AI). In this study, 82 eyes of 79 consecutive patients with mostly traumatic partial or total aniridia that underwent iris reconstruction surgery using a custom-made silicone AI (HumanOptics, Erlangen, Germany). Pre- and postoperative photographs of 66 patients were analysed subjectively and objectively. Subjective evaluation was based questionnaires. Objective evaluation included measurement of pupil centration and iris colour analysis. Averaged hues from iris areas were transferred to numerical values using the LAB-colour-system. Single parameters and overall difference value (ΔE) were compared between AI and remaining iris (RI), as well as AI and fellow eye iris (FI). Patients, eye doctors and laymen rated the overall aesthetic outcome with 8.9 ±1.4, 7.7 ±1.1 and 7.3 ±1.1 out of 10 points, respectively. Mean AI decentration was 0.35 ±0.24 mm. Better pupil centration correlated with a higher overall score for aesthetic outcome (p<0.05). The AI was on average 4.65 ±10 points brighter than RI and FI. Aniridia treatment using a custom-made artificial iris prosthesis offers a good aesthetic outcome. Pupil centration was a key factor that correlated with the amount of aesthetic satisfaction. The AI was on average slightly brighter than the RI and FI

Clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of new generation monofocal IOL enhanced for intermediate distance and conventional monofocal IOL in a Korean population

Abstract Background To compare the clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses (IOLs) and standard monofocal IOLs. Methods In this prospective, randomized, comparative controlled study, we compared the visual outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery at the Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, with either enhanced monofocal IOLs (Tecnis Eyhance, ICB00, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc) (Group 1) or standard monofocal IOLs (Tecnis, ZCB00, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc) (Group 2). The assessment included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate (UIVA at 60 cm) and near (UNVA at 40 cm) visual acuity, uncorrected defocus curves, contrast sensitivity testing (CST), and reading speed test using Quality of vision was evaluated using the Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25). Results At 3-months postoperatively, monocular and binocular outcomes of UIVA and UNVA were statistically significantly better in Group 1 (P < 0.05). The binocular uncorrected defocus curve of Group 1 showed statistically significantly better outcomes at vergence ranges of -1.5 to -4.0 D (P < 0.05). Significantly higher reading speed test was also observed in Group 1 in all ranges tested (1.0 to 0.1 LogMAR) (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in CST between groups. Conclusions Bilateral implantation of enhanced monofocal IOLs provided better vision at intermediate and near distances compared to standard monofocal IOLs, while maintaining good distance vision and contrast sensitivity