-
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 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Nov 2022A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.
STUDY SELECTION
Based on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Descriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.
RESULTS
This NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
For patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.
Topics: Humans; Presbyopia; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Lenses, Intraocular; Cataract Extraction; Contrast Sensitivity; Cataract
PubMed: 36136323
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.3667 -
European Journal of Translational... Sep 2022The aim of this study was to identify the efficacy of drug agents for pharmacological Treatment of Presbyopia. Published research papers were reviewed using the relevant...
The aim of this study was to identify the efficacy of drug agents for pharmacological Treatment of Presbyopia. Published research papers were reviewed using the relevant terms in PubMed, Science direct, Google scholar, Medline, Google patent, Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus. In the initial search, 2270 records were obtained. By removing duplicate articles and all articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria or were inappropriate due to indirect relevance to the subject, 44 studies were selected. It should be noted that all studies had inclusion criteria. There are a number of topical pharmacological agents available for treating presbyopia such as FOV Tears and PresbiDrop. They consist of parasympathetic agent and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), to contract the ciliary and pupil muscle and restore the accommodation. Another example of topical pharmacological agent is EV06. It is a lens-softening eye drop which can affect the rigid lens in presbyopia. Currently there is no pharmacological agent available to treat presbyopia. Although there are limited number of peer-reviewed articles available, the outcome for future agents under investigation are promising.
PubMed: 36121117
DOI: 10.4081/ejtm.2022.10781 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Aug 2022The aim of this paper is to evaluate the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction of small aperture IC-8 IOLs in cataract patients with or without prior ocular events. A... (Review)
Review
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction of small aperture IC-8 IOLs in cataract patients with or without prior ocular events. A systematic review of full-length original English studies reporting the visual results of small aperture IC-8 IOL implantation after cataract surgery in three databases, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The Quality Assessment Tool for case series studies from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute was used to analyze the quality of the studies selected. The search provided 543 articles, of which 22 were included in this systematic review. Significant improvements in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA); uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA); perception of photic phenomena; and patient satisfaction have been reported. Unilateral and bilateral small aperture IC-8 IOL implantation reduces photic phenomena and provides good vision for all distances with high patient satisfaction and minimal postoperative complications. Therefore, the implantation of this IOL may be recommended for patients with cataracts, corneal irregularities and ocular trauma with partial aniridia.
PubMed: 36012888
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11164654 -
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 -
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 -
Eye (London, England) Sep 2022Small-aperture corneal inlays, commonly known as KAMRA, are tiny optical devices inserted in the corneal stroma aiming to gain near vision in patients with presbyopia.... (Review)
Review
Small-aperture corneal inlays, commonly known as KAMRA, are tiny optical devices inserted in the corneal stroma aiming to gain near vision in patients with presbyopia. The purpose of this study was to systematically review case series of small-aperture corneal inlays performed in presbyopic emmetropic patients and to evaluate the visual outcomes of this procedure. This systematic review included 18 articles published between 2011 and 2018, overall studying 2724 eyes from 2691 participants. The mean longest follow-up was 19 months. Results showed that 78.5% of eyes reported an uncorrected near visual acuity of 20/32 or better and 90.50% of eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/25 or better. All patients experienced an improvement in uncorrected near visual acuity with a patient satisfaction ranging between 60% and 90%. The highlighted complications were keratocyte activation leading to corneal stromal haze, epithelial growth, iron deposits and poor distance visual acuity. Explantation was carried out in 101 eyes (3.7%) due to distance vision blurriness, development of epithelial microcysts, incorrect implant placement or hyperopic shift changes. KAMRA demonstrated high efficacy. However, safety and satisfaction rates remain unclear. Despite the low explantation rates reported in the literature, some complications were permanent. The results and conclusions should be taken with caution due to the conflict of interest stated in the reviewed articles.
Topics: Corneal Stroma; Humans; Presbyopia; Prospective Studies; Prostheses and Implants; Prosthesis Implantation; Refraction, Ocular; Treatment Outcome; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 35347289
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02032-3 -
Journal of Refractive Surgery... Dec 2021To conduct a critical review of the peer-reviewed literature on the use of supplemental multifocal intraocular lenses in the ciliary sulcus.
PURPOSE
To conduct a critical review of the peer-reviewed literature on the use of supplemental multifocal intraocular lenses in the ciliary sulcus.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined, 15 articles were selected for the current systematic review. Each of them was analyzed carefully and their risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
RESULTS
Data of 384 eyes from 227 patients were analyzed. Most of the studies reviewed had a short follow-up and poor or limited design, including case reports, case series, and clinical trials with several gaps in their methodology. Post-operative uncorrected distance and near visual acuity ranged from 20/40 to 20/20 and from 0.4 to 0.02 logMAR, respectively. Pigment dispersion (12 eyes) and deposits (13 eyes) were the most described complication. Dysphotopsia, glare, and halos were the more frequently reported visual disturbances. However, most of the patients reported a high level of satisfaction with their surgery. Most articles reviewed (13 of 15) achieved a risk of bias score between 6 and 8, representing a high level of evidence despite the study design limitations.
CONCLUSIONS
Supplemental multifocal intraocular lenses seem to offer good distance and near visual results, leading to high levels of spectacle independence and patients' satisfaction, with limited complications associated. However, more studies with a more robust design are needed to confirm these trends. .
Topics: Humans; Lenses, Intraocular; Multifocal Intraocular Lenses; Presbyopia; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 34914553
DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20210920-01 -
International Ophthalmology Feb 2022To review all case series of refractive corneal inlay implantation: Flexivue (Presbia, Netherlands), Invue (BioVision, Brügg, Switzerland) and Icolens (Neoptics,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To review all case series of refractive corneal inlay implantation: Flexivue (Presbia, Netherlands), Invue (BioVision, Brügg, Switzerland) and Icolens (Neoptics, Hünenberg, Switzerland) performed in presbyopia patients and to evaluate the reported visual outcomes. In addition, our aim is to provide assessment for complications and to report the satisfaction rates.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were consulted using "refractive corneal inlay", "Flexivue Inlay", "Invue Inlay" and "Icolens inlay" as keywords. 147 articles were found, and they were assessed considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After filtering, this systemic review included ten articles, published between 2011 and 2020.
RESULTS
308 eyes from 308 participants were enrolled in this systematic review. Mean maximum follow-up was 13.9 months. Nine of the ten case series included used femtosecond laser for the corneal pocket creation. Mean pocket depth was 293.75 µm. 77.5% of the eyes reported a postoperative uncorrected near visual acuity of 20/32 or better, and 19.20% of the inlay-implanted eyes achieved an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better. The most prominent complications were halos, pain, photophobia, and poor distance visual acuity. 27 eyes (8.7%) had to be explanted due to complications, such as near-distance spectacle dependence or blurred distance vision.
CONCLUSION
Refractive corneal inlay outcomes demonstrated high efficacy, safety, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, it is a reversible technique. However, the findings must be viewed with caution due potential conflict of interest. Further research with higher sample size is needed to validate these findings.
Topics: Corneal Stroma; Corneal Topography; Eye, Artificial; Humans; Presbyopia; Prospective Studies; Prostheses and Implants; Prosthesis Implantation; Refraction, Ocular
PubMed: 34599717
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-021-02024-4 -
The Lancet. Global Health Feb 2021To contribute to the WHO initiative, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, an assessment of global vision impairment in 2020 and temporal change is needed. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To contribute to the WHO initiative, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, an assessment of global vision impairment in 2020 and temporal change is needed. We aimed to extensively update estimates of global vision loss burden, presenting estimates for 2020, temporal change over three decades between 1990-2020, and forecasts for 2050.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. Only studies with samples representative of the population and with clearly defined visual acuity testing protocols were included. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate 2020 prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of mild vision impairment (presenting visual acuity ≥6/18 and <6/12), moderate and severe vision impairment (<6/18 to 3/60), and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation); and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia (presenting near vision
FINDINGS
In 2020, an estimated 43·3 million (95% UI 37·6-48·4) people were blind, of whom 23·9 million (55%; 20·8-26·8) were estimated to be female. We estimated 295 million (267-325) people to have moderate and severe vision impairment, of whom 163 million (55%; 147-179) were female; 258 million (233-285) to have mild vision impairment, of whom 142 million (55%; 128-157) were female; and 510 million (371-667) to have visual impairment from uncorrected presbyopia, of whom 280 million (55%; 205-365) were female. Globally, between 1990 and 2020, among adults aged 50 years or older, age-standardised prevalence of blindness decreased by 28·5% (-29·4 to -27·7) and prevalence of mild vision impairment decreased slightly (-0·3%, -0·8 to -0·2), whereas prevalence of moderate and severe vision impairment increased slightly (2·5%, 1·9 to 3·2; insufficient data were available to calculate this statistic for vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia). In this period, the number of people who were blind increased by 50·6% (47·8 to 53·4) and the number with moderate and severe vision impairment increased by 91·7% (87·6 to 95·8). By 2050, we predict 61·0 million (52·9 to 69·3) people will be blind, 474 million (428 to 518) will have moderate and severe vision impairment, 360 million (322 to 400) will have mild vision impairment, and 866 million (629 to 1150) will have uncorrected presbyopia.
INTERPRETATION
Age-adjusted prevalence of blindness has reduced over the past three decades, yet due to population growth, progress is not keeping pace with needs. We face enormous challenges in avoiding vision impairment as the global population grows and ages.
FUNDING
Brien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Thea, Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation, Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Blindness; Cataract; Eye Diseases; Female; Forecasting; Glaucoma; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Male; Middle Aged; Presbyopia; Vision, Low; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33275950
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30425-3