-
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 -
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 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2020The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collate, report, and critique published evidence related to epidemiology and patient and economic burden... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collate, report, and critique published evidence related to epidemiology and patient and economic burden of presbyopia.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the time of inception through October 2018 using Cochrane methodology. Studies published in English language reporting on epidemiology and patient and economic burden of presbyopia were included.
RESULTS
Initial systematic literature search yielded 2,228 citations, of which 55 met the inclusion criteria (epidemiology, 44; patient burden, 14; economic burden, 1) and were included in this review. Globally, 1.09 billion people are estimated to be affected by presbyopia. The reported presbyopia prevalence varied across regions and by age groups, with the highest prevalence of 90% reported in the Latin America region in adults ≥35 years. Presbyopic patients report up to 22% decrease in quality-of-life (QoL) score, and up to 80% patients with uncorrected presbyopia report difficulty in performing near-vision related tasks. About 12% of presbyopes required help in performing routine activities, and these visual limitations reportedly induce distress and low self-esteem in presbyopia patients. Uncorrected presbyopia led to a 2-fold increased difficulty in near-vision-related tasks and a >8-fold increased difficulty in very demanding near-vision-related tasks. Further, uncorrected presbyopia leads to a decrement in patients' QoL, evident by the low utility values reported in the literature. Annual global productivity losses due to uncorrected and under-corrected presbyopia in working-age population (<50 years) were estimated at US$ 11 billion (0.016% of the global domestic product (GDP) in 2011, which increased to US$ 25.4 billion if all people aged <65 years were assumed to be productive.
CONCLUSION
Uncorrected presbyopia affects patients' vision-related quality of life due to difficulty in performing near-vision-related tasks. In addition, un-/under-corrected presbyopia could lead to productivity losses in working-age adults.
PubMed: 33116396
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S269597 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Presbyopia 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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 participants with presbyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 9); 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 26 September 2019. We searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles and the abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) for the years 2005 to 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies conducted in Europe with a total of 175 participants. All five studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (primary outcome of the review), while some 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 58 to 64 years. Only one study reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all 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). In two studies, the investigators observed that participants' satisfaction or spectacle independence may be higher in the trifocal group at six months, although another study found no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction or spectacle independence between groups. Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Two studies reported information on adverse events at one year. One study reported that participants showed no intraoperative or postoperative complications, while the other study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy. The certainty of the evidence was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty of evidence that compared to bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there is 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 and quality of life.
Topics: Capsule Opacification; Cataract Extraction; Confidence Intervals; Contrast Sensitivity; Female; Humans; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Male; Middle Aged; Multifocal Intraocular Lenses; Postoperative Complications; Presbyopia; Time Factors; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32584432
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012648.pub2 -
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 -
Ophthalmology Oct 2018Presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence, then modeled to expand to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
TOPIC
Presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence, then modeled to expand to country, region, and global estimates.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Understanding presbyopia epidemiologic factors and correction coverage is critical to overcoming the burden of vision impairment (VI) from uncorrected presbyopia.
METHODS
We performed systematic reviews of presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage. Accepted presbyopia prevalence data were gathered into 5-year age groups from 0 to 90 years or older and meta-analyzed within World Health Organization global burden of disease regions. We developed a model based on amplitude of accommodation adjusted for myopia rates to match the regionally meta-analyzed presbyopia prevalence. Presbyopia spectacle-correction coverage was analyzed against country-level variables from the year of data collection; variation in correction coverage was described best by a model based on the Human Development Index, Gini coefficient, and health expenditure, with adjustments for age and urbanization. We used the models to estimate presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage in each age group in urban and rural areas of every country in the world, and combined with population data to estimate the number of people with near VI.
RESULTS
We estimate there were 1.8 billion people (prevalence, 25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.0 billion [23%-27%]) globally with presbyopia in 2015, 826 million (95% CI, 686-960 million) of whom had near VI because they had no, or inadequate, vision correction. Global unmet need for presbyopia correction in 2015 is estimated to be 45% (95% CI, 41%-49%). People with presbyopia are more likely to have adequate optical correction if they live in an urban area of a more developed country with higher health expenditure and lower inequality.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a significant burden of VI from uncorrected presbyopia, with the greatest burden in rural areas of low-resource countries.
Topics: Eyeglasses; Global Health; Humans; Presbyopia; Prevalence; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity; Visually Impaired Persons
PubMed: 29753495
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.013 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology May 2018Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast...
BACKGROUND
Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast expected values in 2020.
METHODS
Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness, moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI), mild vision impairment and presbyopia was estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020.
RESULTS
Age-standardised prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages decreased from 1990 to 2015 from 0.26% (0.10-0.46) to 0.15% (0.06-0.26) and from 1.74% (0.76-2.94) to 1.27% (0.55-2.17), respectively. In 2015, the number of individuals affected by blindness, MSVI and mild vision impairment ranged from 70 000, 630 000 and 610 000, respectively, in Australasia to 980 000, 7.46 million and 7.25 million, respectively, in North America and 1.16 million, 9.61 million and 9.47 million, respectively, in Western Europe. In 2015, cataract was the most common cause for blindness, followed by age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy and cornea-related disorders, with declining burden from cataract and AMD over time. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI.
CONCLUSIONS
While continuing to advance control of cataract and AMD as the leading causes of blindness remains a high priority, overcoming barriers to uptake of refractive error services would address approximately half of the MSVI burden. New data on burden of presbyopia identify this entity as an important public health problem in this population. Additional research on better treatments, better implementation with existing tools and ongoing surveillance of the problem is needed.
Topics: Blindness; Cataract; Developed Countries; Diabetic Retinopathy; Europe; Female; Glaucoma; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Refractive Errors
PubMed: 29545417
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311258