-
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023The incidence of both cataract and glaucoma is increasing globally. With increasing patient expectation and improved technology, premium intraocular lenses (IOLs),... (Review)
Review
The incidence of both cataract and glaucoma is increasing globally. With increasing patient expectation and improved technology, premium intraocular lenses (IOLs), including presbyopia-correcting and toric IOLs, are being increasingly implanted today. However, concerns remain regarding the use of premium IOLs, particularly presbyopia-correcting IOLs, in eyes with glaucoma. This systematic review evaluates the use of premium IOLs in glaucoma. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE database was performed from inception until 1 June 2023. Initial search yielded 1404 records, of which 12 were included in the final review of post-operative outcomes. Studies demonstrated high spectacle independence for distance and good patient satisfaction in glaucomatous eyes, with positive outcomes also in post-operative visual acuity, residual astigmatism, and contrast sensitivity. Considerations in patient selection include anatomical and functional factors, such as the type and severity of glaucomatous visual field defects, glaucoma subtype, presence of ocular surface disease, ocular changes after glaucoma surgery, and the reliability of disease monitoring, all of which may be affected by, or influence, the outcomes of premium IOL implantation in glaucoma patients. Regular reviews on this topic are needed in order to keep up with the rapid advancements in IOL technology and glaucoma surgical treatments.
PubMed: 37760095
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10090993 -
Eye & Contact Lens Aug 2023To analyze critically the clinical trials on presbyopia correction with contact lenses (CLs) to investigate the quality of the research performed.
PURPOSE
To analyze critically the clinical trials on presbyopia correction with contact lenses (CLs) to investigate the quality of the research performed.
METHODS
A search was performed in PubMed database on clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of the presbyopia correction with different CLs, including multifocal or simultaneous vision contact lenses (MCLs). After a comprehensive analysis of the relevant publications found, quality assessment of such publications was performed by means of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool according to the five types of evaluations: MCL versus spectacles, MCL versus pinhole CLs, MCL versus monovision, comparison between MCL designs, and MCL versus extended depth of focus CLs.
RESULTS
A total of 16 clinical trials were selected for evaluation. All evaluated studies addressed a clearly focused research question and were randomized, with a crossover design in most of the cases. Blinding was not possible in all cases due to the physical appearance of some of the CLs evaluated (pinhole or hybrid designs). Most of studies analyzed reported outcomes with complete data, providing the statistical tests used and the P -values, but some of the authors did not provide the statistical power associated to the sample size evaluated. The small sample size in some trials as well as the scarce information about the effect of addition on visual performance was the main limitations found in the peer-reviewed literature revised.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a high-quality scientific evidence supporting the use of presbyopia-correcting CLs, with several randomized controlled clinical trials conducted to this date.
Topics: Humans; Visual Acuity; Presbyopia; Contact Lenses; Eyeglasses
PubMed: 37418305
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000001013 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022To assess the efficacy, safety, and predictability of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract patients with previous corneal refractive surgery.
PURPOSE
To assess the efficacy, safety, and predictability of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract patients with previous corneal refractive surgery.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs implantation in cataract surgery after laser refractive surgery. Outcomes were efficacy, safety and predictability parameters.
RESULTS
The authors identified 13 studies, involving a total of 128 patients and 445 eyes. Presbyopia-correcting IOLs were effective at improving distance, intermediate and near visual acuity aftercataract surgery. The proportion of post-laser surgery eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) ≥ 20/25 was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.90] and the pooled rates of spectacle independence at near, intermediate, and far distances were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.00) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.94) respectively. The percentage of participants who suffered from halos and glare was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.64) and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.16-0.60), respectively. The predictability had a percentage of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D) and ±1.0 D from the targeted spherical equivalent.
CONCLUSIONS
Presbyopia-correcting IOLs provide satisfactory results in terms of efficacy, safety and predictability in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery, but have a higher risk of photopic side effects such as halos and glare.
PubMed: 35479941
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.834805 -
Optometry and Vision Science : Official... Mar 2023This is the first literature review to report the epidemiology, patient burden, and economic burden of astigmatism in the general adult population. The unmet needs of...
SIGNIFICANCE
This is the first literature review to report the epidemiology, patient burden, and economic burden of astigmatism in the general adult population. The unmet needs of astigmatism patients with coexisting ocular conditions (cataract, glaucoma, dry eye, presbyopia, or macular degeneration) and risks associated with untreated astigmatism are also reviewed and reported.
PURPOSE
This study aimed to identify, report, and summarize the published literature on epidemiology, patient burden, and economic burden of astigmatism using a systematic literature review.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched (January 1996 to May 2021). Search results were limited to the English language. Proceedings (2018 to 2021) from ophthalmology congresses were searched along with gray literature using the Google Scholar platform.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 6804 citations, of which 125 met the inclusion criteria (epidemiology, 68; patient burden, 60; economic burden, 6). Astigmatism prevalence in the general population varied from 8 to 62%, with higher rates in individuals 70 years or older. The prevalence of with-the-rule astigmatism was higher in individuals 40 years or younger, whereas rates of against-the-rule and oblique astigmatism increased with age. Astigmatic patients experienced decreased vision quality, increased glare (53 to 77%), haloes (28 to 80%), night-time driving difficulties (66%), falls, and spectacle dependence (45 to 85%). Astigmatic patients performed vision-related tasks slower (1 D, 9% slower; 2 D, 29% slower) and made more errors (1 D, 38% more errors; 2 D, 370% more errors) compared with fully corrected individuals. In cataract patients with astigmatism, the annual mean per-patient productivity loss costs ranged from €55 ($71) to €84 ($108), and mean informal care costs ranged from €30 ($39) to €55 ($71) with a mean of 2.3 to 4.1 hours spent on informal care.
CONCLUSIONS
Uncorrected astigmatism decreases patients' vision-related quality of life, decreases productivity among working-age adults, and poses an economic burden on patients and their families.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Astigmatism; Visual Acuity; Quality of Life; Vision, Ocular; Cataract
PubMed: 36749017
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001998 -
International Journal of Ophthalmology 2023Adequate near and intermediate visual capacity is important in performing everyday tasks, especially after the introduction of smartphones and computers in our... (Review)
Review
Adequate near and intermediate visual capacity is important in performing everyday tasks, especially after the introduction of smartphones and computers in our professional and recreational activities. Primary objective of this study was to review all available reading tests both conventional and digital and explore their integrated characteristics. A systematic review of the recent literature regarding reading charts was performed based on the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Springer databases between February and March 2021. Data from 11 descriptive and 24 comparative studies were included in the present systematic review. Clinical settings are still dominated by conventional printed reading charts; however, the most prevalent of them (, Jaeger type charts) are not validated. Reliable reading capacity assessment is done only by those that comply with the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO) recommendations. Digital reading tests are gaining popularity both in clinical and research settings and are differentiated in standard computer-based applications that require installation either in a computer or a tablet (, Advanced VISION Test and web-based ones , Democritus Digital Acuity Reading Test requires no installation). It is evident that validated digital tests will prevail in future clinical or research settings and it is upon ophthalmologists to select the one most compatible with their examination routine.
PubMed: 36659955
DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2023.01.18 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology May 2019The objective of this review is to estimate the prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive error (URE), and uncorrected presbyopia in adults aged ≥30...
PURPOSE
The objective of this review is to estimate the prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive error (URE), and uncorrected presbyopia in adults aged ≥30 years in India.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A detailed literature search was performed to include all studies published from India from the year 1990 using the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. Refractive error was defined by >0.50 D ametropia. URE was defined by presenting visual acuity (PVA) worse than 6/18 improving with pinhole or spectacle correction, and uncorrected presbyopia by near vision
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included from South India, one each from Western and Central India, and one study covered 15 states across India. The prevalence of RE of at least 0.50 D of spherical equivalent ametropia was 53.1% [(95% confidence interval (CI): 37.2-68.5), of which myopia and hyperopia was 27.7% and 22.9%, respectively. The prevalence of URE was 10.2% (95% CI: 6.9-14.8), but heterogeneity in these estimates was very high. The prevalence of uncorrected presbyopia was 33% (95% CI: 19.1-51.0).
CONCLUSION
This review highlights the magnitude of refractive errors among adults in India. More studies are needed using standard methods in regions where there is a lack of information on UREs. Programs delivering spectacles for adults in India will need to primarily focus on reading glasses to correct presbyopia along with spectacles for hyperopia and myopia.
Topics: Adult; Humans; India; Presbyopia; Prevalence; Refraction, Ocular; Refractive Errors
PubMed: 31007213
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1235_18 -
Journal of Refractive Surgery... Jun 2012To evaluate uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) as well as uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) as outcomes in treating presbyopic cataract patients to assist... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) as well as uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) as outcomes in treating presbyopic cataract patients to assist clinicians and ophthalmologists in their decision-making process regarding available interventions.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews were systematically reviewed to identify studies reporting changes in UDVA and UNVA after cataract surgery in presbyopic patients. Strict inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to exclude any studies not reporting uncorrected visual acuity in a presbyopic population with cataracts implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Relevant outcomes (UDVA and UNVA) were identified from the studies retrieved through the systematic review process.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies were identified that reported uncorrected visual acuities, including one study that reported uncorrected intermediate visual acuity. Nine brands of multifocal IOLs were identified in the search. All studies identified in the literature search reported improvements in UDVA and UNVA following multifocal IOL implantation. The largest improvements in visual acuity were reported using the Rayner M-Flex lens (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Ltd) (UDVA, binocular: 1.05 logMAR, monocular: 0.92 logMAR; UNVA, binocular and monocular: 0.83 logMAR) and the smallest improvements were reported using the Acri.LISA lens (Carl Zeiss Meditec) (UDVA, 0.21 decimal; UNVA, 0.51 decimal).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review show the aggregate of studies reporting a beneficial increase in UDVA and UNVA with the use of multifocal IOLs in cataract patients with presbyopia, hence providing evidence to support the hypothesis that multifocal IOLs increase UDVA and UNVA in cataract patients.
Topics: Cataract Extraction; Distance Perception; Humans; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Presbyopia; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 22692525
DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20120518-06 -
Clinical & Experimental Optometry Mar 2023Country-specific estimates of the prevalence of refractive errors are important to formulate national eye health policies for refractive care services. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Country-specific estimates of the prevalence of refractive errors are important to formulate national eye health policies for refractive care services.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to systematically synthesise available literature and estimate the prevalence of refractive errors in the Nepalese population.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for articles on refractive errors and presbyopia published in English language until 27 September 2022. Population and school-based quantitative, cross-sectional prevalence studies and Rapid Assessment of Avoidable Blindness survey repository data were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. Data extraction was performed with consensus among the reviewers. Meta-analysis of the prevalence was performed using the Random effects model to estimate the pooled proportions.
RESULTS
A total of 38 studies with 101 701 participants were included: 18 studies in children (n = 31 596) and 20 in adults (n = 70 105). In children, the estimated pooled prevalence of overall refractive errors was 8.4% (95% CI: 4.8 to 12.9) with myopia, hypermetropia and astigmatism prevalent in 7.1% (95% CI: 3.7 to 11.4), 1.0% (95% CI: 0.7 to 1.3) and 2.2% (95% CI: 0.9 to 3.9), respectively. In adults, the prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive errors, and uncorrected presbyopia were 11.2% (95% CI: 8.0 to 14.9), 7.3% (95% CI: 5.4 to 9.5) and 78.9% (95% CI: 69.1 to 87.3), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The pooled prevalence of refractive errors is relatively low while uncorrected refractive errors and presbyopia are high in Nepalese population suggesting a need for better access to refractive care services in the country. The paucity of quality evidence on prevalence of refractive errors, particularly in children, indicates a need for a well-designed population-based study to accurately estimate the current prevalence of refractive errors.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Presbyopia; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Nepal; Visual Acuity; Refractive Errors
PubMed: 36628479
DOI: 10.1080/08164622.2022.2153582 -
Eye (London, England) Mar 2023The aim of this study was to collect the scientific literature on the correction of presbyopia with laser in situ keratomileusis (presbyLASIK) in last years and to... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to collect the scientific literature on the correction of presbyopia with laser in situ keratomileusis (presbyLASIK) in last years and to analyse the quality of such scientific evidence using a validated methodology for conducting a systematic review. A total of 42 articles were initially identified, but after applying the selection criteria and an additional manual search a total of 23 articles were finally included: 2 non-randomized controlled clinical trials (NRCT) and 21 case series. Quality assessment of NRCTs and case series was performed with the ROBINS-I and the 20-criterion quality appraisal checklist defined by Moga et al. (IHE Publ 2012), respectively. For NRCT, the risk of bias was moderate in one study and serious in the other NRCT, being the main sources of risk, the domains related to confounding, selection of participants and measurement of outcomes. For case series studies, the main source of risk of bias was subjects not entering the study at the same point of the conditions (different levels of presbyopia). Likewise, a significant level of uncertainty was detected for the following items: consecutive recruitment of patients, blinding of outcome assessors to the intervention that the patient received, and conclusions of the study not supported by the results. Research on presbyLASIK to this date is mainly focused on case series generating a limited level of scientific evidence. The two NRCTs identified only demonstrated the potential benefit of combining the multiaspheric profile with some level of monovision in the non-dominant eye.
Topics: Humans; Presbyopia; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ
PubMed: 35864161
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02175-3 -
Clinical & Experimental Optometry May 2014Uncorrected refractive error is the leading cause of global visual impairment. Given resource constraints in developing countries, the gold standard method of refractive... (Review)
Review
Uncorrected refractive error is the leading cause of global visual impairment. Given resource constraints in developing countries, the gold standard method of refractive error correction, custom-made spectacles, is unlikely to be available for some time. Therefore, ready-made and recycled spectacles are in wide use in the developing world. To ensure that refractive error interventions are successful, it is important that only appropriate modes of refractive error correction are used. As a basis for policy development, a systematic literature review was conducted of interventional studies analysing visual function, patient satisfaction and continued use outcomes of ready-made and recycled spectacles dispensed to individuals in developing countries with refractive errors or presbyopia. PubMed and CINAHL were searched by MESH terms and keywords related to ready-made and recycled spectacle interventions, yielding 185 non-duplicated papers. After applying exclusion criteria, eight papers describing seven studies of clinical outcomes of dispensing ready-made spectacles were retained for analysis. The two randomised controlled trials and five non-experimental studies suggest that ready-made spectacles can provide sufficient visual function for a large portion of the world's population with refractive error, including those with astigmatism and/or anisometropia. The follow-up period for many of the studies was too short to confidently comment on patient satisfaction and continued-use outcomes. No studies were found that met inclusion criteria and discussed recycled spectacles. The literature also notes concerns about quality and cost effectiveness of recycled spectacles, as well as their tendency to increase developing countries' reliance on outside sources of help. In light of the findings, the dispensing of ready-made spectacles should be favoured over the dispensing of recycled spectacles in developing countries.
Topics: Disposable Equipment; Eyeglasses; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Refraction, Ocular; Refractive Errors; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 24397254
DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12126