-
BMC Ophthalmology Apr 2024To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced monofocal IOLs, post-cataract surgery through a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from the past 5 years. Parameters such as binocular visual acuities, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and optical quality were used to evaluate efficacy and safety. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17.0 software.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comprising 2465 subjects were included. Trifocal IOLs exhibited superior uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) compared to monofocal IOLs (MD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22). Both trifocal (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOLs group MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.06) and EDOF IOLs (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.09) showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) than monofocal IOLs. Trifocal IOLs ranked highest in spectacle independence at various distances (AT LISAtri 839MP group: SUCRA 97.5% for distance, 80.7% for intermediate; AcrySof IQ PanOptix group: SUCRA 83.0% for near).
CONCLUSIONS
For cataract patients who want to treat presbyopia, trifocal IOLs demonstrated better visual acuity and spectacle independence at near distances. Different types of trifocal IOL characteristics differ. EDOF and enhanced monofocal IOLs have improved visual quality at intermediate distances.Therefore, It is very important to select the appropriate IOLs based on the lens characteristics and patient needs.
Topics: Humans; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Presbyopia; Refraction, Ocular; Patient Satisfaction; Lenses, Intraocular; Cataract; Prosthesis Design; Phacoemulsification; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38627651
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-024-03446-1 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023To investigate the effects of postoperative astigmatism on the visual outcomes following presbyopia-correcting surgery with multifocal intraocular lens implantation.
PURPOSE
To investigate the effects of postoperative astigmatism on the visual outcomes following presbyopia-correcting surgery with multifocal intraocular lens implantation.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published until January 2023. Additionally, we included retrospective case series and prospective comparative studies. The combined mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were used to express continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager (version 5.4.1).
RESULTS
We included nine eligible studies that analyzed 3,088 eyes. The proportion of eyes with useful postoperative visual acuity (logMAR ≤ 0.20) and residual astigmatism significantly differed with respect to the magnitude of astigmatism and presence/absence of blurred vision ( < 0.001 for both). Additionally, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (MD, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.21; = 0.0003) and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (MD, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.13; = 0.04), but not the uncorrected near visual acuity (MD, 0.02; 95%CI-0.01 to 0.05; = 0.17), significantly differed according to the magnitude of astigmatism.
CONCLUSION
Astigmatism, even at low levels (≥ 0.5D), has a significant effect on visual outcomes, especially on UDVA and UIVA, following multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Accurate preoperative and postoperative evaluation of astigmatism is important.
PubMed: 38089878
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1214714 -
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 -
Journal of Refractive Surgery... Sep 2023To determine the efficacy, safety, predictability, and stability of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in the treatment of presbyopia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To determine the efficacy, safety, predictability, and stability of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in the treatment of presbyopia.
METHODS
The databases of CNKI, VIP, Wan-Fang, CBM, Chinese Clinical Registry, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until March 2023. The authors chose the studies of LASIK in the treatment of presbyopia. Outcomes were efficacy, safety, predictability, and stability. The review was registered in the international platform of registered systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (INPLASY202350005).
RESULTS
A total of 28 non-randomized controlled trials (15,861 eyes) were included. The results showed that after LASIK, (1) the distance efficacy decreased (mean difference [MD]: 0.02, 95% CI: 0.0 to 0.03, < .05) and the near efficacy increased (MD: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.19 to-0.02, < .05); (2) the distance safety decreased (MD: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.10, < .0001) and near safety increased (MD: -0.19, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.02, > .05); (3) the predictability within ±1.00 and ±0.50 D was 94% (relative risk [RR]: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.98, < .001) and 80% (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.86, < .001), respectively; and (4) 6 months postoperatively, the percentage of spherical equivalent changing within ±0.50 D was 95% (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.89 to 0.99, < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
The near efficacy, predictability, and stability of LASIK for presbyopia correction were satisfactory; however, the distance efficacy and distance safety decreased. .
Topics: Humans; Databases, Factual; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Presbyopia; Refraction, Ocular
PubMed: 37675909
DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20230802-02 -
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 Public Health 2023Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a new safe and efficient tool for the rehabilitation of many childhood and adulthood illnesses. VR-based therapies have the potential...
Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a new safe and efficient tool for the rehabilitation of many childhood and adulthood illnesses. VR-based therapies have the potential to improve both motor and functional skills in a wide range of age groups through cortical reorganization and the activation of various neuronal connections. Recently, the potential for using serious VR-based games that combine perceptual learning and dichoptic stimulation has been explored for the rehabilitation of ophthalmological and neurological disorders. In ophthalmology, several clinical studies have demonstrated the ability to use VR training to enhance stereopsis, contrast sensitivity, and visual acuity. The use of VR technology provides a significant advantage in training each eye individually without requiring occlusion or penalty. In neurological disorders, the majority of patients undergo recurrent episodes (relapses) of neurological impairment, however, in a few cases (60-80%), the illness progresses over time and becomes chronic, consequential in cumulated motor disability and cognitive deficits. Current research on memory restoration has been spurred by theories about brain plasticity and findings concerning the nervous system's capacity to reconstruct cellular synapses as a result of interaction with enriched environments. Therefore, the use of VR training can play an important role in the improvement of cognitive function and motor disability. Although there are several reviews in the community employing relevant Artificial Intelligence in healthcare, VR has not yet been thoroughly examined in this regard. In this systematic review, we examine the key ideas of VR-based training for prevention and control measurements in ocular diseases such as Myopia, Amblyopia, Presbyopia, and Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD), and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Epilepsy and Autism spectrum disorder. This review highlights the fundamentals of VR technologies regarding their clinical research in healthcare. Moreover, these findings will raise community awareness of using VR training and help researchers to learn new techniques to prevent and cure different diseases. We further discuss the current challenges of using VR devices, as well as the future prospects of human training.
Topics: Humans; Child; Artificial Intelligence; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Disabled Persons; Motor Disorders; Virtual Reality; Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 37033028
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1143947 -
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 -
Ophthalmology and Therapy Apr 2023A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify and obtain a precise single summary estimate on complete spectacle independence after...
INTRODUCTION
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify and obtain a precise single summary estimate on complete spectacle independence after bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (AcrySof PanOptix, TFNTXX/TFATXX) for patients undergoing cataract surgery.
METHODS
A search was conducted in PubMed from January 2017 to September 2021. Relevant congress presentations were also searched to include data from completed studies not yet published. Search terms included the intervention (TFNTXX, TFATXX, PanOptix) and outcomes of interest (patient-reported spectacle independence rates). A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, providing a pooled estimate (median and its 95% credible interval) of complete spectacle independence rates among cataract surgery patients. Subgroup analyses evaluated spectacle independence after cataract surgery across different working distances (near, intermediate, far).
RESULTS
Nineteen unique clinical studies were identified. Based on a meta-analysis of 13 studies (N = 513 patients), the complete spectacle independence rate after cataract surgery with TFNTXX/TFATXX IOL was 91.6% (95% credible interval 86.8-95.9%). Additionally, the spectacle independence rates at each focal point (N = 13 studies, 603 patients) were 89.6% (near), 96.3% (intermediate), and 95.9% (far).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis demonstrated that at least nine out of ten patients receiving TFNTXX/TFATXX trifocal IOL during cataract surgery can expect to achieve complete spectacle independence. This study provides informative data for clinicians and patients to feel confident in the use of trifocal intraocular lenses as presbyopia-correcting IOLs that offer high rates of complete spectacle independence.
PubMed: 36745314
DOI: 10.1007/s40123-023-00657-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among people with presbyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years of age or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence according to the GRADE classification.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified seven studies conducted in Europe and Turkey with a total of 331 participants. All included studies assessed visual acuity using a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR chart). Of them, six (86%) studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (the primary outcome of this review). Some studies also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 55 to 74 years. Three studies reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all of the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study examined vision-related quality of life using the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) at six months, and suggested no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOLs (MD 1.41, 95% CI -1.78 to 4.60; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Of five studies reporting information on adverse events, two studies observed no intraoperative and postoperative complications or no posterior capsular opacification at six months. One study reported that glare and halos were similar to the preoperative measurements. One study reported that 4 (20%) and 10 (50%) participants had glare complaints at 6 months in trifocal and bifocal group, respectively (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.07; 40 participants). One study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal group and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy at one year. The certainty of the evidence for adverse events was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty of evidence that compared with bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there was no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity, quality of life, and vision-related adverse effects.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Capsule Opacification; Cataract Extraction; Lenses, Intraocular; Presbyopia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36705482
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012648.pub3 -
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