Journal of refractive surgery最新文献

Purpose: To compare variance of manifest refraction (MR) measurement and variance of refractive outcomes after keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) in the same cohort.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients attending at least three preoperative refractions before undergoing KLEx. All manifest refractions were performed according to a standard protocol. Additionally, automated refraction, spectacles prescription, wavefront refraction, and tomography/topography were also considered when determining the treatment refraction. Variance of postoperative outcomes was compared to variance of MR measurement.

Results: The difference in MR of 153 eyes between the first and last preoperative visit showed a mean pairwise absolute difference of 0.22 ± 0.22 diopters (D) (range: 0.00 to 1.25 D) in spherical equivalent (SE). The 95% limit of agreement (LoA) was within 0.73 D for sphere, 0.60 D for cylinder, and 0.61 D for SE. Standard deviation (SD) for corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 0.06 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and the 95% LoA was within 1.3 Snellen lines. The differences between reproducibility of the two last preoperative MR and the variance of postoperative outcomes after KLEx (ie, the isolated repeatability of corneal lenticule extraction) was SD of 0.13 D for sphere, cylinder, and SE, and 11 degrees in axis, respectively.

Conclusions: Predictability of KLEx was equal to variance of refraction measurement. Isolated repeatability of the laser treatment was better than the reproducibility of MR. Thus, the authors have shown for the first time that precision of KLEx has reached such a level today that further improvement is limited by MR measurements. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e814-e823.].

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of individualized ray-tracing-guided femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.

Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, contralateral eye study included 68 eyes of 34 patients with myopia or myopic astigmatism requiring FS-LASIK treatment. For each patient, one eye was randomly assigned to receive the ray-tracing-guided treatment, whereas the contralateral eye underwent Q-value-adjusted ablation. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), sphere, cylinder, effective optical zone (EOZ), and 6-mm corneal aberrations were measured and analyzed before operation and after a 3-month postoperative follow-up.

Results: At 3 months postoperatively, the UDVA of 20/16 or better was measured in 94% of eyes in the ray-tracing group and 85% of eyes in the Custom-Q group (P = .064). Forty-seven percent in the ray-tracing group and 32% in the Custom-Q group gained one or more Snellen lines of CDVA (P = .043). The MRSE, refractive astigmatism, surgically induced astigmatism, and difference vector were better in the Custom-Q group (P < .05). The postoperative corneal HOAs and optical path difference were significantly better in the ray-tracing group (P = .008). The EOZs of the ray-tracing and Custom-Q groups were 5.77 and 5.43 mm (P < .001), and the average ablation depths of the ray-tracing and Custom-Q groups were 100.97 and 85.24 µm (P < .001), respectively.

Conclusions: Despite the overcorrection and excessive ablation of corneal tissue, ray-tracing-guided FS-LASIK in clinical practice was found to be safe and effective for myopic correction both with and without astigmatism, particularly in achieving UDVA and inducing fewer corneal HOAs and less OPD. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e804-e813.].

Purpose: To evaluate range of visual acuity, visual quality, and safety of the IC-8 small-aperture (SA) intraocular lens (IOL) (Apthera; Bausch & Lomb, Inc) in patients with cataract.

Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, non-randomized, examiner-masked, 12-month clinical study conducted at 21 sites in the United States. Included patients (N = 453) received either the SA IOL (targeted to -0.75 diopters) in one eye and a monofocal or monofocal toric IOL (targeted to plano) in the fellow eye (SA IOL group, n = 343) or bilateral monofocal/monofocal toric IOLs (control group, n = 110).

Results: At 6 months, the SA IOL group achieved superior binocular uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuity (P < .0001) and equivalent binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity versus the control group. In SA IOL eyes, 99.1% achieved monocular corrected distance visual acuity of 0.3 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution or better. The SA IOL and control groups had comparable binocular photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities at 6 months both with and without glare. The SA IOL group reported few visual symptoms overall, although at higher rates than in the control group.

Conclusions: The SA IOL group exhibited improved intermediate and near vision, comparable distance vision and binocular contrast sensitivities, and few visual symptoms or adverse events versus the bilateral monofocal/monofocal toric IOL group, suggesting that the SA IOL is an effective option for presbyopia correction at the time of cataract surgery. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e824-e835.].

Purpose: To compare and assess the visual, refractive, and tomographic results of patients with corneal ectasia treated with either corneal allogenic intrastromal ring segments (CAIRS) or synthetic intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) without concomitant corneal cross-linking.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 34 eyes with CAIRS were matched to 34 eyes with ICRS using the propensity score matching technique. Each group was matched on a oneto-one basis using multiple parameters such as central corneal thickness, vertical and horizontal coma, maximum anterior keratometry, steepest keratometry, and age. Visual, refractive, topographic, and aberrometric data were measured at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively.

Results: Initial preoperative parameters were similar between the two groups. Both groups showed significant improvement at last follow-up time in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (0.52 ± 0.23 to 0.16 ± 0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR], P < .001; 0.44 ± 0.27 to 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR, P < .001), topographic astigmatism (4.45 ± 2.75 to 3.14 ± 1.93 diopters [D], P = .001; 3.66 ± 2.22 to 2.36 ± 1.46 D, P = .007), maximum anterior keratometry (55.85 ± 7.53 to 50.69 ± 6.38 D, P < .001; 54.59 ± 6.95 to 50.71 ± 4.51 D, P = .003), and vertical coma (1.49 ± 1.02 to 0.38 ± 0.65 D, P < .001; 1.22 ± 0.75 to 0.52 ± 0.57 D, P < .001) for CAIRS and ICRS, respectively. The improvements observed in both groups at the last follow-up visit were comparable; however, the CAIRS group demonstrated a higher percentage of eyes gaining two or more Snellen lines of CDVA (60% vs 31.58%, P = .04), and a greater magnitude of reduction in vertical coma compared to the ICRS group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. No major complications were observed with both groups, and one eye lost one CDVA line in the ICRS group. The mean thickness of the CAIRS segments at the last follow-up visit was 401.06 ± 100.12 µm, compared to 435.29 ± 26.19 µm for ICRS. Both CAIRS and ICRS demonstrated significant compression of stromal thickness above the segment (36.19% and 32.00%, respectively).

Conclusions: When adequately matched for preoperative disease type and severity, eyes with CAIRS had a similar and notable clinical improvement compared to ICRS, with possibly better improvement in vertical coma and CDVA. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e863-e876.].

Purpose: To assess the incidence and causes for re-treatment following monovision laser refractive surgery in a large data study spanning a decade.

Methods: The setting for this retrospective comparative study was Care Vision Laser Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. This study included patients aged 36 to 60 years who underwent monovision laser vision correction at the Care Vision Laser Centers, Israel, from January 2012 to December 2022. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative data were retrieved for analysis.

Results: Overall, 3,674 eyes of 1,847 patients were included. Re-treatment was performed in 1.28% (n = 47) of eyes, 0.84% (n = 31) distance-targeted and 0.44% (n = 16) near-targeted. Monovision reversal in near-targeted eyes occurred due to overcorrection (37.5%, n = 6 of 16), despite being on target (25%, n = 4 of 16), insufficient myopia (18.8%, n = 3 of 16), and de novo astigmatism (12.5%, n = 2 of 16). One eye was targeted for near vision due to de novo astigmatism. Re-treatment in distance-targeted eyes was due to myopic undercorrection (45.2%, n = 14 of 31), myopic regression (19.4%, n = 6 of 31), myopic overcorrection (12.9%, n = 4 of 31), hyperopic regression (6.5%, n = 2 of 31), astigmatism undercorrection (6.5%, n = 2 of 31), de novo astigmatism (6.5%, n = 2 of 31), and astigmatism regression (3.2%, n = 1 of 31). Re-treatment was more likely in distance targeted eyes of patients with monovision compared to near-targeted eyes (P = .025) and patients without monovision (P < .001).

Conclusions: In monovision laser vision correction, retreatment in the near-targeted eye is rare when the ideal near target (-1.50 to -1.25 diopters) is achieved. However, the distance-targeted eye is more likely to require re-treatment. Surgeons can plan monovision surgery and advise patients accordingly. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e892-e897.].

Purpose: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a stand-alone unidirectional airflow system, the SurgiCube (Surgi-Cube International BV), for cataract surgery compared to a conventional operating theater (OT).

Methods: This was a retrospective and comparative cross-sectional study conducted at the Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France. All patients who underwent cataract surgery using the SurgiCube between February 2020 and February 2023 were included and compared to a separate group of patients with cataract surgery performed in a conventional OT and under topical anesthesia during the same period. Patients with less than 1 month of follow-up after surgery were excluded. We collected relevant information from the patient's medical records. Main outcome measures, incidence of endophthalmitis, intraoperative and postoperative complication incidence, 1-month logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity and intraocular pressure, and operating times were analyzed.

Results: A total of 1,901 eyes in the SurgiCube group were compared to 5,474 eyes in the OT group. The occurrence of endophthalmitis was 0.05% (n = 1) in the SurgiCube group versus 0.07% (n = 4) in the OT group (P = 1.00; odds ratio = 0.72 [95% CI = 0.01 to 7.28]). The percentage of procedures with at least one perioperative complication was 2.6% in the SurgiCube group and 2.7% in the OT group (P = .87; odds ratio = 0.96 [95% CI = 0.68 to 1.34]). The percentage of procedures with a postoperative complication was 6.31% in the SurgiCube group and 6.6% in the OT group (P = .59; odds ratio = 0.94 [95% CI = 0.75 to 1.17]. Average visual acuity at 30 days was 0.04 logMAR in the SurgiCube group and 0.07 logMAR in the OT group (P = .62). The average operating times were 16.8 and 19.7 minutes for the SurgiCube and OT groups, respectively (P < .001). The average occupation room times were 26.2 and 32.3 minutes for the SurgiCube and OT groups, respectively (P < .001).

Conclusions: Cataract surgery in the SurgiCube seems to be non-inferior to cataract surgery in a conventional OT. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(11):e884-e891.].

Purpose: To assess the visual outcomes in patients with cataract implanted with a small-aperture intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes with aberrated corneas.

Methods: This prospective, non-interventional, single-center clinical study was conducted at Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore. Twenty-one patients with aberrated corneas had IC-8 IOL (Bausch & Lomb, Inc) implantation. An aberrated cornea was defined as from natural causes: keratoconus (n = 1, 4.8%), high coma (n = 2, 9.5%), corneal scar (n = 1, 4.8%), or iatrogenic causes: keratorefractive procedure (n = 17, 86%). Uncorrected and corrected visual acuities were measured at distance (600 cm) (UDVA and CDVA), intermediate (66.7 cm) (UIVA and CIVA), and near (40 cm) (UNVA and CIVA). Defocus curve was tested monocularly and binocularly. Contrast sensitivity (CS) was measured under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare.

Results: In IC-8 eyes, the mean ± standard deviation UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA was 0.24 ± 0.18, 0.19 ± 0.18, and 0.14 ± 0.14 logMAR, respectively. Mean CDVA, CIVA, and CNVA in IC-8 eyes was 0.12 ± 0.17, 0.16 ± 0.15, and 0.19 ± 0.13 logMAR, respectively. Binocular mean UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA was 0.07 ± 0.10, 0.07 ± 0.10, and 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR, respectively. Defocus curve testing yielded a depth of focus of 1.50 D monocularly and 2.00 D binocularly at a 0.2 logMAR threshold. Photopic binocular CS with and without glare improved over monocular CS of IC-8 and fellow eyes under all spatial frequencies. Mesopic binocular CS with and without glare were similar among monocular IC-8 and fellow eyes across spatial frequencies. Most patients reported low levels of visual symptoms.

Conclusions: The IC-8 IOL provides good monocular and binocular visual outcomes for patients with cataract who had aberrated corneas. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(10):e716-e723.].

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of cataract surgery with implantation of a wavefront-shaping extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes with previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia correction.

Methods: This prospective observational study enrolled 50 eyes with previous LASIK from 25 patients (age: 46 to 70 years) who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of the AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc). Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up. PROMs were evaluated with the Intraocular Lens Satisfaction (IOLSAT; Alcon Vision, LLC) (general satisfaction), Catquest-9SF (difficulty in doing vision-related activities), and Questionnaire for Visual Disturbances (QUVID; Alcon Vision, LLC) (photic phenomena) questionnaires.

Results: Mean 3-month postoperative binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were 0.02 ± 0.11, -0.02 ± 0.09, and 0.14 ± 0.13 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), respectively. Mean binocular distance-corrected intermediate and near visual acuities were 0.05 ± 0.11 and 0.32 ± 0.14 logMAR, respectively. All eyes had a postoperative spherical equivalent within ±0.75 diopters (D). The mean defocus curve showed visual acuity values better than 0.20 logMAR for defocus levels from +0.50 to -1.50 D. Most patients (92.0%) confirmed that they had no vision-related difficulties limiting their normal daily life. Perception of starbursts, halos, glare, hazy vision, blurry vision, and double vision was referred by 24%, 24%, 28%, 28%, 8%, and 4% of patients, respectively. Most of symptoms were described as mild and not or a little bothersome.

Conclusions: The wavefront-shaping EDOF IOL evaluated provides efficacious distance, intermediate, and near visual restoration in eyes with previous LASIK, with minimal photic phenomena associated. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(10):e742-e753.].

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator in toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculation.

Methods: Eighty-five eyes of 85 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation were included. The accuracy was compared between the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator under two calculation modes: using simulated keratometry (SimK) from the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) for posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) prediction and employing total corneal astigmatism (total corneal refractive power [TCRP] or measured PCA) obtained from the Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). The centroid of prediction errors, percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 diopter (D), mean prediction error, and mean absolute prediction error were calculated. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the orientation and magnitude of anterior corneal astigmatism and axial length.

Results: When using SimK, the two calculators with predicted PCA showed comparable accuracy. When employing total corneal astigmatism, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA showed a lower centroid error (0.15 vs 0.38 D), a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D (47.1% vs 32.9%, P = .018), and a lower mean prediction error (0.57 vs 0.71 D, P = .033) compared to the Z CALC2 calculator with TCRP in the 4-mm zone. In subgroup analysis, when employing total corneal astigmatism, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA exhibited superior accuracy, especially in the with-the-rule and anterior corneal astigmatism of 2.00 D or less subgroups.

Conclusions: When using SimK, the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator yield comparable accuracy. The Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA may be more recommended when employing total corneal astigmatism. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(10):e681-e691.].