The authors received research support from Ziemer Group. In addition, Dr. Koch has a financial interest with Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Calhoun Vision, Inc., NuLens, and Optimedica Corp.

Corneal astigmatism was overestimated in WTR by all devices and underestimated in ATR by all except the Placido-dual Scheimpflug analyzer. A new toric IOL nomogram is proposed.

No abstract

Objective To compare the newer formulae, the optical coherence tomography based intraocular lens (IOL) power formula (OCT formula) and the Barrett True-K formula (True-K), to the methods on the ASCRS calculator in eyes with previous myopic LASIK/PRK. Design Prospective case series. Participants One-hundred and four eyes of 80 patients who had previous myopic LASIK/PRK and subsequent cataract surgery and IOL implantation. Methods Using the actual refraction following cataract surgery as target refraction, predicted IOL power for each method was calculated. The IOL prediction error (PE) was obtained by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the power of IOL implanted. Main outcome measures Arithmetic IOL PEs, variances of mean arithmetic IOL PE, median refractive PE and percent of eyes within 0.5 D and 1.0 D of refractive PE. Results OCT produced smaller variance of IOL PE than did Wang-Koch-Maloney, and Shammas (P<0.05). With the OCT, True-K No History, Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, Haigis-L, and Average of these 5 formulas, respectively, the median refractive PEs were 0.35 D, 0.42 D, 0.51 D, 0.48 D, 0.39 D, and 0.35 D, and the % of eyes within 0.5 D of refractive PE were 68.3%, 58.7%, 50.0%, 52.9%, 55.8%, and 67.3%, and within 1.0 D of RPE, 92.3%, 90.4%, 86.9%, 88.5%, 90.4%, and 94.2%, respectively. The OCT formula had smaller refractive PE compared to Wang-Koch-Maloney and Shammas, and the Average approach produced significantly smaller refractive PE than did all methods except OCT (all P<0.05). Conclusions The OCT and True-K No History are promising formulas. The ASCRS IOL calculator has been updated to include the OCT and Barrett True K formulas. Trial registration Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Laser Refractive Surgery Based on Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT IOL); Identifier: NCT00532051; www.ClinicalTrials.gov

Purpose: To review the published literature on the visual acuity results and complications of different surgical techniques for intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in the absence of zonular support.Methods: Peer-reviewed literature searches were conducted last in PubMed and the Cochrane Library in July 2019. The searches yielded 734 citations of articles published in English. The panel reviewed the abstracts of these mostly retrospective case series studies, and 45 were determined to be relevant to the assessment objectives. Three articles were rated as level II evidence, and 42 articles were rated as level III evidence.Results: Eight different types of IOL fixation techniques with at least 6-month follow-up were evaluated: anterior chamber IOL (ACIOL), iris-claw IOL, retropupillary iris-claw IOL, 10-0 polypropylene iris-sutured posterior chamber IOL (PCIOL), 10-0 polypropylene scleral-sutured PCIOL, 8-0 polypropylene scleral-sutured PCIOL, CV-8 polytetrafluoroethylene, and intrascleral haptic fixation (ISHF). Eight articles reported data comparing 2 techniques. The 45 studies had insufficient statistical power to compare the techniques conclusively. A qualitative analysis of similar types showed that trends in visual acuity outcomes were not inferior to those of ACIOL implantation, but the severity of preoperative pathologic features was not controlled for. Compared with ACIOL, complications of cystoid macular edema were higher in 10-0 polypropylene iris-sutured PCIOL and 8-0 polypropylene scleral-sutured PCIOL. Noneanterior chamber IOL techniques were less likely to report chronic uveitis. Chronic glaucoma was highest in the 8-0 polypropylene scleral-sutured PCIOL group. Although retinal detachment was infrequent overall, it was twice as common in both iris-and scleral-sutured PCIOLs (except CV-8 polytetrafluoroethylene suture) compared with nonsutured methods: ACIOL, iris-clipped IOL, and ISHF PCIOL.Conclusions: The evidence reviewed shows no superiority of any single IOL implantation technique in the absence of zonular support. The various techniques seem to have equivalent visual acuity outcomes and safety profiles. Each technique has its own profile of inherent risk of postoperative complications. Surgeons must educate patients on the importance of close, long-term follow-up as a result of the uncertain nature of these techniques. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm the long-term complication profiles of these various IOL implantation techniques.

Supplemental GLA and n-3 PUFAs for 6 months improved ocular irritation symptoms, maintained corneal surface smoothness, and inhibited conjunctival dendritic cell maturation in patients with postmenopausal keratoconjunctivitis sicca.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00883649.

No abstract

When a secondary IOL cannot be placed within the capsular bag, sulcus with optic capture is the best alternative, followed by sulcus without optic capture. There was no difference in visual acuity outcomes between transscleral-sutured IOLs, iris-fixated IOLs, and AC IOLs. Anterior chamber IOLs resulted in fewer early complications.