Explore the vast range of titles available.

To assess visual outcomes and patient satisfaction for trifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared to monofocal IOLs with and without monovision. Consecutive patients underwent bilateral cataract extraction surgery and implantation of either monofocal IOLs, monofocal IOLs using monovision, EDOF IOLs, or trifocal IOLs. Patients with preoperative biometric data, postoperative refraction, and visual acuity who completed a questionnaire regarding satisfaction and side effects were included. Visual outcome, spectacle independence, patient satisfaction, and subjective photic phenomena were assessed. Each group comprised 50 patients (100 eyes). The mean postoperative uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities (logMAR) were: 0.17 ± 0.14 (Snellen 20/30), not applicable, and not applicable for monofocal; 0.08 ± 0.12 (Snellen 20/24), not applicable, and 0.07 ± 0.12 (Snellen 20/23) for monovision; 0.03 ± 0.08 (Snellen 20/21), 0.08 ± 0.12 (Snellen 20/24), and 0.23 ± 0.17 (Snellen 20/34) for EDOF; 0.07 ± 0.09 (Snellen 20/23), 0.08 ± 0.11 (Snellen 20/24), and 0.02 ± 0.06 (Snellen 20/21) for trifocal. Spectacle independence was reported by 36%, 70%, 74%, and 92% of patients, respectively. Postoperative halos and/or glare were experienced by 2%, 6%, 14%, and 38%, respectively, of which 2%, 0%, 6%, and 10%, respectively, were functionally disturbing. A total of 64%, 72%, 78%, and 76%, respectively, would choose the same IOL again. Patient satisfaction rates were high in all groups. Trifocal IOLs were more effective in improving unaided whole range of vision, but were associated with a higher rate of photic phenomena. The EDOF IOL and monovision provided partial spectacle independence with less photic phenomena. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(7):434-440.].

PurposeTo compare ocular measurements of three optical biometry devices and their application in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations.MethodsOne hundred and forty eyes which had undergone cataract extraction surgery with preoperative biometry with OA­-2000, IOLMaster-500, and Lenstar-LS900 were enrolled. Biometry measurements of the three devices were compared. The deviation of the postoperative refraction from the preoperative refractive target was calculated with different formulas (Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and SRK/T). Errors in the predicted astigmatism using the Barrett toric calculator were calculated for the toric IOLs. Additional 6465 eyes in which the IOLMaster-500 failed to measure axial length (AL) were reviewed. The percentage of successful measurements using the OA-2000 in those eyes was calculated.ResultsHigh agreement was found between the three devices for AL, anterior chamber depth, and average keratometry measurements (interclass correlation confidents: 1.000, 0.970, and 0.998, respectively, P < 0.001). The mean absolute prediction errors were similar using all formulas, ranging from 0.25 to 0.29 D, with no statistical significant difference between the three devices per each formula. The OA-2000 yielded a lower against-the-rule (ATR) centroid error in the predicted astigmatism than the IOLMaster-500 and Lenstar-LS900 (0.06 D ± 0.59 at 13.4° vs. 0.20 D ± 0.61 at 14.8° and 0.16 D ± 0.55 at 21.4°, respectively, P < 0.001, X-axis). Among 301 cases with unsuccessful AL readings using the IOLMaster-500, the OA-2000 had 284 (94.35%) successful measurements.ConclusionsThe OA-2000 measurements showed good agreement with those of the IOLMaster-500 and Lenstar-LS900. Our results may suggest a potential advantage of the OA-2000 device in toric IOLs calculations and AL measurement success rate.

Different techniques for artificial iris implantation with or without an intraocular lens, depending on lens status, are described in the literature. We describe a surgical technique for a custom-made artificial iris and toric-intraocular lens intrascleral flange fixation. We modified the “Backpack” artificial iris implantation surgical technique to facilitate an accurate alignment of the toric-intraocular lens in a patient with aphakia, aniridia, and high asymmetric astigmatism secondary to blunt trauma. Two months after the surgery, uncorrected visual acuity was 20/30, corrected to 20/25 with a refraction of −2.00 in the diopter sphere with no residual astigmatism. The artificial iris implant and toric-intraocular lens were well-centered. The patient was satisfied with the visual and cosmetic outcomes. This procedure, however, is not complication-free as our patient developed uveitis and increased intraocular pressure during the postoperative period, which was treated successfully.

Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is considered a contraindication for the implantation of presbyopia-correcting IOLs, without sufficient corroborating evidence. A Retrospective, case–control study. Nineteen eyes of ten patients with grade 2–5 FECD (study group) and 57 healthy eyes of 57 patients (control group) who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of presbyopia-correcting IOLs, at the Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel Aviv, Israel, were included. The target refraction was emmetropia for both groups. Two subgroups of IOLs were analyzed separately: extended depth of focus (EDOF), (9 eyes of FECD patients and 27 eyes of control patients) and multifocal IOLs (10 eyes of FECD patients and 30 eyes of control patients). Main outcome measures were visual acuity and refraction 6 weeks after the surgery. Secondary outcomes were patient perceptions of visual acuity, spectacle independence, photic phenomena and satisfaction scores, reported in a self-assessment questionnaire. FECD patients in the EDOF IOL subgroup had inferior uncorrected distance visual acuity ( P  = 0.007) and better uncorrected near visual acuity ( P  = 0.001) compared to the controls. They had less spectacle independence for the intermediate range ( P  = 0.01) and overall ( P  = 0.006). However, they did not have more photic phenomena. In the multifocal IOL subgroup, no significant differences were found between the FECD and the control group in visual acuity for all ranges and in spectacle independence. FECD patients had more photic phenomena than the controls ( P  = 0.006), but it did not interfere with daily life activities. There was no difference in post-operative mean spherical equivalent, patient reported visual perception, and general satisfaction between FECD and control patients in both groups. Our results suggest that presbyopia-correcting IOLs can be carefully considered in patients with grade 2–5 FECD, with slightly inferior results compared with healthy eyes.

In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the deviation from the planned axis of 3 Toric intraocular lenses (TIOL). Included in the study 190 eyes, operated by two surgeons using two different manual marking techniques. The patients were implanted with either AcrySof IQ Toric SN6AT (Alcon) (n = 90), POD FT (PhysIOL) (n = 50), or TECNIS Symfony Toric (J&J) (n = 50). At least 1 month postoperatively, the IOL was photographed, and the axis was measured using a designed software. The difference between the planned and actual axis was defined as axis deviation. The effect of IOL type, astigmatism direction, and marking techniques on the average degree and direction of the IOL deviation were evaluated and compared. There was no significant difference in the average deviation between the IOLs (TECNIS Symfony: 4.03° ± 4.34, POD FT: 3.52° ± 3.38, and SN6AT: 4.24° ± 4.10), and its direction (55.8%, 39.0%, and 56.6% clockwise (CW) deviation, respectively). With the rule, astigmatism had significantly more CW deviation compared with against the rule and oblique astigmatism (64.3%, 43.8%, and 41.7%, respectively, P = 0.027), but the average deviation was similar. The marking techniques did not influence the degree or direction of the deviation.

Purpose: To describe our results with the AssiAnchor capsule device in cases of subluxated crystalline lenses. Methods: This was a retrospective consecutive case series. Seven eyes of four patients with subluxated crystalline lenses underwent lensectomy/phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation using the AssiAnchor capsule device in the Kaplan medical center, ophthalmology department. Three patients had Marfan syndrome and one patient had experienced blunt trauma. Demographic data were collected as well as parameters of pre- and postoperative distance visual acuity and refraction, intra-, and postoperative complications, and IOL stability and centration. Results: Six out of the seven surgical procedures were uneventful with in-the-bag implantation of the IOL. In the first surgery, a tear of the capsular bag lead to IOL exchanging and fixating to the AssiAnchor and to the iris. In the traumatic cataract case, two AssiAnchors were used. A capsular tension ring was implanted in six out of seven surgeries. The average follow-up time was 9.5 ± 6.8 months. All the IOLs were stable and well centered except for the first IOL that exhibited a slight temporal, but not clinically significant, decentration. The distance visual acuity and the refractive parameters improved significantly in all cases. Conclusion: We found the AssiAnchor capsule device an effective tool with a short learning curve for treating subluxated lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the findings of three corneal measuring devices for calculating surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) during cataract extraction. METHODS: Patients’ records were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who had corneal astigmatism measurements before and at least 1 month after cataract surgery through 2.4-mm corneal incisions by all three tested devices (Lenstar LS900, Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland; IOLMaster 500, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA; and Atlas topographer, Carl Zeiss Meditec). Vector analysis was used to calculate the SIA for each measuring device. RESULTS: Seventy eyes of 49 patients were included. All three measuring devices had similar SIA results: the median SIAs were 0.45 diopters (D) for the Lenstar, 0.41 D for the IOLMaster, and 0.47 D for the Atlas topographer (Seventy eyes of 49 patients were included. All three measuring devices had similar SIA results: the median SIAs were 0.45 diopters (D) for the Lenstar, 0.41 D for the IOLMaster, and 0.47 D for the Atlas topographer ( P = .884). CONCLUSIONS: The three evaluated anterior corneal measuring devices produced similar results in measuring SIA. [[ J Refract Surg. 2015;31(4):244–247.]

Purpose To evaluate the importance of the anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and white-to-white distance (WTW) in predicting the final postoperative refraction using modern formulas. Methods This was a retrospective study of 140 consecutive eyes that underwent cataract surgery at the Department of Ophthalmology, Edith Wolfson Medical Centre, Holon, Israel. The Barrett Universal II (BUII), Kane, and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas were calculated for each eye with all combinations of omitting ACD, LT, and WTW, as possible by each formula. Lens constant optimizations were executed. The results were compared to the postoperative refraction. Results For the BUII formula, the ACD only variation exhibited a statistically significant increase in mean absolute deviation (MAD) (0.024 diopters [D], P = .010) and standard deviation of prediction error (SD-PE) (0.022, P = .002) compared with BUII using all parameters, whereas no other variations showed statistically significant differences in MAD or SD-PE. For the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula, both the ACD only (0.012 D, P < .001) and ACD+WTW (0.009 D, P = .016) variations demonstrated a statistically significant increase in MAD, although no statistically significant differences were observed in SD-PE. For the Kane formula, excluding the LT parameter resulted in a statistically significant increase in MAD (0.020 D, P = .034), whereas the increase in SD-PE (0.020, P = .266) was not statistically significant. Conclusions The BUII, Kane, and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas demonstrated statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, differences in SD-PE and MAD when ACD, LT, and WTW were excluded in normal biometric eyes. Further research involving eyes with atypical biometric characteristics is warranted to enhance refractive accuracy and minimize outliers. [J Refract Surg. 2025;41(7):e662–e666.]

This eBook is a review on the state-of-the-art knowledge on currently available premium intraocular lenses. The volume covers a variety of intraocular lenses including multifocal, accommodative, aspheric, and toric versions and special intraocular biodevices such as intraocular telescopes. Details regarding their features, indications, contraindications and clinical results are also discussed based on evidence based / peer reviewed data. This eBook serves as a brief reference for optometry professionals seeking updates about high quality lenses for eye patients.