The new ClinicCSF application for iPad retina showed no significant differences with FACT test when the same contrast sensitivity steps were used. In addition, it is shown that the accurateness of a vision screening could be improved with the use of an appropriate psychophysical method.

The visual performance at near distance with the IOL evaluated improved in eyes with less corneal power. On the other hand, a slight temporal IOL decentration from vertex normal also improved intermediate visual acuity. The binocular defocus curve was similar to other trifocal IOLs.

The biomechanically corrected IOP measured after surgery with the dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer showed better agreement with the preoperative values than IOP. The stiffness parameter was not dependent on the amount of removed corneal thickness. A new sign correlated with dynamic corneal densitometry was found and might be related to changes in corneal hydration and biomechanics.

Objective:To evaluate the repeatability of the fast measurement of the visual acuity (VADC) and contrast sensitivity (CSDC) defocus curves with a new test as well as the agreement of measurements at far distance obtained with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and the ClinicCSF test for measuring Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF).Method:Records from fifty-nine subjects implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses (MIOLs) were retrieved from our database. VADC and CSDC were measured from +1.00 D to -4.00 D in 0.50 D steps. The agreement with the ETDRS and the CSF at far distance was assessed in comparison to the 0 D location of the VADC and the CSDC, respectively. The repeatability was evaluated in 34 subjects who consecutively repeated two measures.Results:Median Visual Acuity (VA) was -0.1 logMAR with the VADC at 0 D of defocus and 0 logMAR with the ETDRS (p>0.05). A total of 45.8% of eyes showed no differences between both tests and the difference was less than one line of VA in 96.6% of the eyes. The intrasubject repeatability was under one line of VA along all the defocus curve except for positive defocus levels. The CSDC showed the best agreement with the CSF for 18 cycles per degree. The CSDC was less repeatable than VADC. Mean time spent on completing the VADC and CSDC was 7.81 and 7.98 minutes, respectively.Conclusion:The VADC showed good agreement with the ETDRS and good repeatability despite the short testing time. In contrast, poorer repeatability was found for CSDC. Our method would facilitate the inclusion of VADC in clinical practice as it is a fast test, being also the first one including the measure of CSDC.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the prediction of visual performance based on the modulation transfer function area (MTFa) calculated with optical simulations is better correlated with visual acuity or contrast sensitivity obtained from defocus curves in patients implanted with a trifocal intraocular lens. METHODS: Biometric eye data from 43 patients were used to create a mean eye model. A trifocal intraocular lens with a power obtained from the mean of the eyes implanted was incorporated into the model and the MTFa was calculated at the 11 defocus planes corresponding the 11 defocus locations measured in clinical practice. Simulations were conducted for pupil diameters of 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 mm. The MTFa correlation with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity was evaluated with the mean obtained after stratification of the clinical sample in four groups according to the previous pupil diameters. RESULTS: A linear model predicted the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity from MTFa with similar accuracy to nonlinear models, with R 2 approximately 0.50 for visual acuity and approximately 0.42 for contrast sensitivity. A change of −0.01 logMAR and −0.02 logC was produced per unit of MTFa for visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, respectively. The mean difference between the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity obtained from the model and that measured in clinical practice was close to zero, but the bias varied depending on the defocus lens used, with higher deviation at −0.50 and −3.00 diopters of defocus. CONCLUSIONS: The MTFa obtained from optical simulations can be used to predict the mean visual acuity and contrast sensitivity consistently, with contrast sensitivity being more sensitive but with higher bias. [ J Refract Surg. 2019;35(12):789–795.]

Intraocular lens (IOL) opacification is an infrequent complication of cataract sur-gery. Surface analysis has demonstrated that the opacification of IOLs is related to calcium or phosphate precipitation on or within the lenses, but the associated mechanisms are unknown, and the scientific literature is heterogeneous and limited to case series and retrospective studies. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyse the most frequent conditions associated with opacification of IOLs reported by studies. A search was carried out using the PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus databases. The quality of the studies selected was evaluated using the Pierson tool. The search provided a total of 811 articles, of which 39 were selected following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common opacified lenses were hydrophilic IOLs according to our analysis. The mean time of appearance of lens opacification was 14.93 ± 17.82 months. The most frequent conditions associated with opacification of the IOLs were Descemet Stripping with Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK/DSEK) and diabetes mellitus (DM), followed by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), blood hypertension (HT), and glaucoma.Concerning the quality analysis, the mean score was 7.00 ± 1.43 (scoring range from 0 to 10), indicating an acceptable quality of the case reports and retrospective studies. In conclusion, DSAEK/DSEK, DM, PPV, glaucoma and hypertension are conditions with potential risk of IOL opacification after cataract surgery, especially when implanting hydrophilic acrylic IOLs. K E Y W O R D Sacrylic IOL, cataract surgery, intraocular lens, IOL explantation, IOL opacification

PURPOSE: To evaluate the standard clinical outcomes, defocus curves, and satisfaction obtained with a new diffractive low addition trifocal intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: Thirty patients who were implanted with the Versario Multifocal 3F IOL (Valeant Med Sp.zo.o., Warsaw, Poland) were recruited for a prospective observational study at Qvision, Vithas Virgen del Mar Hospital, Almería, Spain. Variables for reporting standard outcomes were collected at the 1-month visit for monocular vision and the 3-month visit for binocular vision, including best spectacle refraction and corrected and uncorrected visual acuities at far, intermediate (67 cm), and near (40 cm) distances. In addition, monocular and binocular visual acuity defocus curves were measured and questionnaires for grading subjective visual quality, satisfaction, and visual function were supplied at the end of the follow-up. RESULTS: Monocular corrected distance visual acuity decreased progressively from far (−0.05 logMAR) to near (0.25 logMAR) and improved approximately −0.1 logMAR along the defocus curve in binocular vision. The mean residual spherical equivalent (SE) was 0.15 ± 0.47 diopters (D), with 79% of eyes within ±0.50 D and 97% within ±1.00 D with the SRK/T formula. All of the visual function tasks improved after surgery, especially driving at night, which increased from 58 to 79 ( P < .05). Of 27 patients, 84.4% were satisfied or very satisfied with their general vision. CONCLUSIONS: This new lens was similar in terms of visual performance and satisfaction to other trifocal IOLs. It can be classified as a trifocal extended depth of focus IOL because of the performance between extended depth of focus IOLs and medium-high addition trifocal IOLs. [ J Refract Surg . 2019;35(4):214–221.]

Dysfunctional lens syndrome (DLS) is a term coined to describe the natural aging changes in the crystalline lens. Different alterations in the refractive properties and transparency of the lens are produced during the development of presbyopia and cataract, such as changes in internal high order aberrations or an increase in ocular forward scattering, with a potentially significant impact on clinical measures, including visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Objective technologies have emerged to solve the limits of current methods for the grading of the lens aging, which have been linked to the DLS term. However, there is still not a gold standard or evidence-based clinical guidelines around these new technologies despite multiple research studies have correlated their results with conventional methods such as visual acuity or the lens opacification system (LOCS), with more scientific background around the ocular scattering index (OSI) and Scheimpflug densitometry. In either case, DLS is not a new evidence-based concept that leads to new knowledge about crystalline lens aging but it is a nomenclature change of two existing terms, presbyopia and cataracts. Therefore, this term should be used with caution in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.