The surgical management of ectopia lentis presents the ophthalmic surgeon with numerous challenges and options. From the clinical evaluation to the surgical approach, ectopia lentis patients require additional methodologies, techniques, and devices to ensure the best possible outcome. The continued refinement of surgical techniques and adjunctive prosthetic devices has led to incremental improvements in the ability to achieve successful in-the-bag placement and centration of intraocular lenses while reducing complications. A thorough understanding of the challenges inherent in ectopia lentis cases and the management of intraoperative complications will ensure that surgeons approaching the correction of these eyes will achieve the best possible surgical results.

Dysfunctional tear syndrome (DTS) is a common and complex condition affecting the ocular surface. The health and normal functioning of the ocular surface is dependent on a stable and sufficient tear film. Clinician awareness of conditions affecting the ocular surface has increased in recent years because of expanded research and the publication of diagnosis and treatment guidelines pertaining to disorders resulting in DTS, including the Delphi panel treatment recommendations for DTS (2006), the International Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS) (2007), the Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD) Workshop (2011), and the updated Preferred Practice Pattern guidelines from the American Academy of Ophthalmology pertaining to dry eye and blepharitis (2013). Since the publication of the existing guidelines, new diagnostic techniques and treatment options that provide an opportunity for better management of patients have become available. Clinicians are now able to access a wealth of information that can help them obtain a differential diagnosis and treatment approach for patients presenting with DTS. This review provides a practical and directed approach to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with DTS, emphasizing treatment that is tailored to the specific disease subtype as well as the severity of the condition.

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

No abstract

We describe the essential steps in the successful phacoemulsification of the rock-hard, dense cataract. Appropriate and directed preoperative history, physical examination, and diagnostics allow the surgeon to select the best incision, anesthesia, and intended surgical technique for a given dense nuclear challenge. Hard nucleus-specific approaches for hydrodissection, pupil management, and zonular protection then allow the surgeon to approach the rock-hard nucleus with maximum safety. Dense nuclear dismantling options are then discussed in detail along with fluidic and power modulation considerations. Various specific phacoemusification machine settings for rock-hard cataracts from the authors representing several different phaco systems are then presented. The combination of these steps and considerations allow a more successful dense cataract removal and potential restoration of vision for patients. This paper represents the collective experience and advice of the Challenging and Complex Cataract Surgery Subcommittee.

Purpose To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with the AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL or Vivity Toric IOL to those achieved with other multifocal IOLs. Patients and Methods Prospective, open-label, multicenter analysis of PROs, including spectacle independence, dysphotopsia, and overall satisfaction among patients who underwent cataract surgery at least 1 month previously with bilateral Vivity or Vivity Toric lenses (n=60). Results were compared to outcomes from two similar prospective studies of bilateral AcrySof IQ PanOptix or PanOptix Toric trifocal IOLs (n = 59), blended AcrySof ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 IOLs (n=72) or bilateral ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 D IOLs with a mini-monovision target [n = 95]). Results Patients in the Vivity cohort were significantly less likely to notice glare and halo in dim light (85% “none” or “just a little”) compared to PanOptix (69%, p<0.03), 2.5 mini-monovision (75%, p< 0.05) or 2.5/3.0 (71%, p< 0.05) patients. Complete spectacle independence for all visual activities combined (never need glasses) with Vivity was comparable to the mini-monovision and 2.5/3.0 groups (33%, 36%, and 31%, respectively) but significantly lower than in the PanOptix cohort (83%, p < 0.0001). Satisfaction was high across all groups. There were no statistically significant differences in best-corrected visual acuity, and no new safety concerns were reported. Conclusion The AcrySof IQ Vivity extended depth of focus IOL offers an expanded range of vision and better spectacle independence than has typically been achieved with traditional monofocal IOLs, with high rates of satisfaction and a favorable dysphotopsia profile compared to diffractive multifocal IOLs.

Purpose: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction results after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in three groups: two receiving bilateral implantation of the same IOL and another undergoing blended vision with two different multifocal IOLs. Patients and methods: A questionnaire was administered to patients who had undergone uncomplicated cataract surgery and 2 months of follow-up: the first group underwent bilateral implantation with Alcon's AcrySof ReSTOR 3.0 lens ("3.0/3.0," n=78); the second group underwent implantation with the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 or the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 toric lens ("2.5 mini-monovision," n=102); and the third group underwent implantation with the ReSTOR 2.5 lens in the dominant eye and the ReSTOR 3.0 lens in the non-dominant eye ("2.5/3.0," n=89). Results: Overall PROs and satisfaction was similar among the groups. Refractive outcomes and accuracy were similar among the groups, but the 2.5 mini-monovision group reported better intermediate vision. Refractive outcome differences were not meaningful among the groups and were not a differentiating factor in PROs. Substantially fewer patients in the 2.5 mini-monovision group noticed glare and halo compared with the 3.0/3.0 group (P<0.0001, chi-square test). No new safety concerns were reported. Conclusion: The 2.5 mini-monovision results in a higher percentage of patients being satisfied with intermediate vision than bilateral ReSTOR 3.0 or blended vision with ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 implants, but overall PRO differences were not statistically significant.

No abstract