No abstract

To evaluate both refractive and biometry results of presbyopic refractive lens exchange (RLE) with trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes previously submitted to corneal laser vision correction (LVC).

Up to 7% of eyes implanted with FineVision trifocal IOLs had a hyperopic shift of greater than +0.75 D approximately 2 weeks to 3 months postoperatively. Using a CTR in MicroF eyes had no statistically significant effect on refractive stability. Placing a CTR with POD FT IOLs appeared to reduce refractive stability, although not significantly. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(12):802-806.].

Purpose To compare the refractive predictability of ray tracing IOL calculations based on OCT data versus traditional IOL calculation formulas based on reflectometry in patients with a history of previous myopic laser vision correction (LVC). Patients and Methods This was a prospective interventional single-arm study of IOL calculations for cataract and refractive lens exchange (RLE) patients with a history of myopic LVC. Preoperative biometric data were collected using an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) device (Haag-Streit Lenstar 900) and two optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices (Tomey Casia SS-1000 and Heidelberg Engineering Anterion). Traditional post LVC formulas (Barret True-K no-history and Haigis-L) with reflectometry data, and ray tracing IOL calculation software (OKULIX, Panopsis GmbH, Mainz, Germany) with OCT data were used to calculate IOL power. Follow-up examination was 2 to 3 months after surgery. The main outcome measure, refractive prediction error (RPE), was calculated as the achieved postoperative refraction minus the predicted refraction. Results We found that the best ray tracing combination (Anterion-OKULIX) resulted in an arithmetic prediction error statistically significantly lower than that achieved with the best formula calculation (Barret True-K no-history) (−0.13 D and −0.32 D, respectively, adjusted p = 0.01), while the Barret TK NH had the lowest SD. The absolute prediction error was 0.26 D and 0.35 D for Anterion-OKULIX and Barret TK NH, respectively, but this was not statistically significantly different. The Anterion-OKULIX calculation also had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, compared to both formulas and within ±0.50 and ±0.75 compared to the Haigis-L ( p = 0.03). Conclusion Ray tracing calculation based on OCT data from the Anterion device can yield similar or better results than traditional post LVC formulas. Ray tracing calculations are based on individual measurements and do not rely on the ocular history of the patient and are therefore applicable for any patient, also without previous refractive surgery.

Purpose: To compare the prevalence of dry eye disease (DED) as determined by signs and symptoms in patients with a history of laser vision correction (LVC) or implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation 5-15 years ago with a matched control group with no history of refractive surgery. Patient and Methods: This was a cross-sectional case-control study. The subject population included patients who had LVC or ICL 5 to 15 years ago. The control group was age matched. A test eye was randomly chosen. Subjects were required to have good ocular health. DED was evaluated using categorical cut-off criteria for tear film osmolarity (measured in both eyes), the subjective Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), the dynamic Objective Scatter Index (OSI), non-invasive keratography tear break-up time (NIKBUT), meibography, and the Schirmer 1 test. Results: The study included 257 subjects (94 LVC, 80 ICL, 83 control). The frequency of hyperosmolarity was significantly higher in the LVC group vs the control (73% vs 50%, p = 0.002), In contrast, the frequency of subjective symptoms tended to be lower in the LVC group than in the control group (19% vs 31%; p = 0.06). These differences were not seen between the ICL and control group. Conclusion: The results suggest that LVC may cause tear film instability as indicated by hyperosmolar tears up to 15 years after surgery, with few subjective symptoms of dry eye. This may have implications for IOL calculations for cataract or refractive lens exchange later in life.

Purpose To evaluate the visual function of patients with a history of prior laser vision correction and cataract surgery with implantation of a monofocal primary IOL after subsequent implantation of a secondary sulcus trifocal intraocular lens (IOL). Setting One clinical practice in Haugesund, Norway. Design Prospective, single arm, non-interventional unmasked study. Methods Eligible subjects who had previous laser vision correction and cataract surgery involving implantation of a monofocal IOL in the capsular bag of one or both eyes were subsequently implanted with a secondary IOL in the sulcus. Postoperative uncorrected and best distance-corrected visual acuities (VAs) were measured at distance (4 m), intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 cm), along with low contrast visual acuity and the monocular distance corrected defocus curve. Results Twenty-five eyes were evaluated from 7 to 24 months after trifocal implantation. The mean monocular uncorrected VAs were 0.06, 0.21 and 0.10 logMAR at distance, intermediate and near, respectively. Uncorrected near VA was 0.2 logMAR or better in 80% of eyes (20/25). VA of 0.2 logMAR or better at all test distances was achieved in 15/25 eyes (60%) in the uncorrected state and 17/25 eyes (68%) when corrected for distance vision. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.1 logMAR or better in all subjects while binocular uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.1 logMAR or better in all but one subject. The defocus curve showed a range of functional vision from distance to 30 cm. No adverse events were identified. Conclusion The trifocal sulcus IOL provided excellent distance and near vision and a good range of functional vision, similar to results obtained when a primary trifocal IOL is implanted. It is a viable option to provide better intermediate and near vision to patients with a prior history of refractive surgery and a monofocal IOL implanted.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of inter-eye osmolarity differences in relation to dry eye symptoms and other non-osmolar signs of dry eye disease. Patients and Methods: One hundred ninety one participants who attended a larger interventional study of dry eye disease prior to and after cataract surgery were analyzed for dry eye disease (DED). Dry eye diagnostics were performed for all subjects according to the DEWS II criteria: tear osmolarity was collected from both eyes with the TearLab system, non-invasive Tear film break up time (NIKBUT) was obtained on the test eye with Keratograph and ocular surface staining (OSS) was evaluated using the Oxford schema. The Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire was used to assess symptoms. Inter-eye osmolarity greater than 8, which is considered as a sign of DED according to the TearLab user manual, was evaluated and compared with other non-osmolar signs of DED. Results: The 191 subjects were divided into three groups according to osmolarity measurements. Sixty-five subjects had normal osmolarity (below 308 mOsmol/L in both eyes and less than 9 mOsmol/L difference between the eyes), 107 had high osmolarity (308 mOsmol/L or higher in one of the eyes) and 19 had an inter-eye difference >8 mOsmol/L or higher, with neither eye having osmolarity higher than 307 mOsmol/L. Signs and symptoms in this last group were not correlated with the high osmolarity group or the normal group, though they appeared more similar to the normal group. Conclusion:The diagnostic value of inter-eye osmolarity difference in predicting symptoms or other non-osmolar signs of dry eyes appears weak. Our study suggests that the criterion of an inter-eye difference of 8 mOsmol/L is not a useful cut-off for diagnosing dry eyes based on osmolarity.

To evaluate the agreement of refractive predictability of a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer, which uses segmental AL calculation, with another SS-OCT biometer, and an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer. The secondary objective was to describe the refractive outcomes, visual acuities, and the agreement of different preoperative biometric parameters. Patients and Methods:The study was a retrospective one-arm study of refractive and visual outcomes after successful cataract surgery. Preoperative biometric data were collected with two different SS-OCT device (Argos, Alcon Laboratories and Anterion, Heidelberg Engineering) and an OLCR device (Lenstar 900, Haag-Streit). The Barrett Universal II formula was used to calculate IOL power for all three devices. Follow-up examination was 1-2 months after surgery. The main outcome measure, refractive prediction error (RPE), was calculated as the achieved postoperative refraction minus the predicted refraction for each device. Absolute error (AE) was calculated by reducing the mean error to zero. Results:The study included 129 eyes of 129 patients. The mean RPE was 0.06, −0.14 and 0.17 D for the Argos, Anterion and Lenstar, respectively (p < 0.01). The Argos also had the lowest absolute RPE, while the Lenstar had the lowest median AE, but this was not statistically significant (p > 0.2). The percentages of eyes with RPE within ±0.5 was 76%, 71%, and 78% for the Argos, Anterion, and Lenstar, respectively. The percentages of eyes with AE within 0.5 D was 79%, 84%, and 82% for the Argos, Anterion and Lenstar, respectively. None of these percentages were statistically significantly different (p > 0.2). Conclusion: All three biometers showed good refractive predictability with no statistically significant differences in AE or percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of RPE or AE. The lowest arithmetic RPE was found with the Argos biometer.