Premium intraocular lenses in children

Abstract

Multifocal and toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) or the so-called premium IOLs are currently widely used in adult patients as a one-step refractive solution following cataract surgery. However, the decision to implant a premium IOL in a pediatric patient involves multiple factors affecting the child’s visual development and is associated with several dilemmas and surgical challenges. The purpose of this review is to summarize these factors and analyse the influence of each of them on the visual outcomes following premium IOL implantation. A review of literature was conducted using the relevant keywords from various databases until 31st January 2022. All pertinent studies with multifocal or toric IOL implantation in children were reviewed, and relevant articles were studied in detail for age, IOL power calculation, visual outcomes (refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity and stereopsis) and complications such as dysphotic phenomena and others. A total of 17 relevant studies (10 case series/interventional studies and 7 case reports) on the subject were included. All studies showed a favourable refractive outcome; however, the data available was significantly less. Studies with earlier models of multifocal IOLs showed a higher incidence of IOL decentration and posterior capsule opacification; however, more recent studies with newer IOL models showed much better safety profiles. Toric IOLs showed promising results in all the studies evaluated. Premium IOLs have shown promising results in the pediatric age group. However, their long-term outcomes specifically concerning refractive shift, capsular contraction and role in the management of amblyopia needs to be explored further.

Outcomes and predictive factors in multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation

“…There are few studies on multifocal IOLs in pediatric patients. The most recent systematic review [21] found only case reports and smaller interventional trials, and though refractive outcomes were generally good, there was not enough data to be conclusive. There was also internal variation within the included reports.…”