-
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