Cataract surgery including intraocular lens (IOL) insertion, has been refined extensively since the first such procedure by Sir Harold Ridley in 1949. The intentional creation of monovision with IOLs using monofocal IOL designs has been reported since 1984. The first reported implantation of multifocal IOLs was published in 1987. Since then, various refractive and or diffractive multifocal IOLs have been commercialised. Most are concentric, but segmented IOLs are also available. The most popular are trifocal designs (overlaying two diffractive patterns to achieve additional focal planes at intermediate and near distances) and extended depth of focus designs which leave the patient largely spectacle independent with the reduced risk of bothersome contrast reduction and glare. As well as mini-monovision, surgical strategies to minimise the impact of presbyopia with IOLs includes mixing and matching lenses between the eyes and using IOLs whose power can be adjusted post-implantation. Various IOL designs to mimic the accommodative process have been tried including hinge optics, dual optics, lateral shifts lenses with cubic-type surfaces, lens refilling and curvature changing approaches, but issues in maintaining the active mechanism with post-surgical fibrosis, without causing ocular inflammation, remain a challenge. With careful patient selection, satisfaction rates with IOLs to manage presbyopia are high and anatomical or physiological complications rates are no higher than with monofocal IOLs.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the use of measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) values improves the prediction accuracy of toric intraocular lens power formulas, compared to predicted PCA values, when the orientation of the steep axis of PCA is non-vertical.
METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study.
METHODS: Four hundred eighteen eyes of 344 patients were included in the study. Prediction errors (PE) for postoperative refractive astigmatism at 4 weeks postoperatively were determined using vector analysis and compared for the following toric intraocular lens power formulas: Barrett Toric with predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (PPCA); Barrett Toric with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (MPCA); EVO Toric PPCA; EVO Toric MPCA; Holladay I with Abulafia-Koch regression. Subgroup analysis compared PEs for eyes with a vertically orientated steep axis of PCA (60-120°) to eyes with a non-vertically orientated steep axis of PCA.
METHODS: Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, United Kingdom and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
RESULTS: Standard keratometry was with-the-rule in 48% of eyes, while the steep PCA axis was vertically orientated in 91% of eyes. For all eyes, EVO-PPCA had a smaller mean absolute error than Barrett-MPCA, Barrett-PPCA, and Abulafia-Koch (P < .01 for all). EVO-PPCA had the highest percentage of eyes within 0.50D of predicted postoperative astigmatism for eyes with vertical PCA (61%), while EVO-MPCA had the highest percentage for eyes with non-vertical PCA (54%). EVO-MPCA had the smallest centroid error for all eyes, and the subgroups (P < .01 for all). Eyes with non-vertical PCA had a lower percentage within 0.50D than eyes with vertical PCA when using PPCA (43% vs 61%, P = .034), but there was no significant difference between these groups when MPCA is used for eyes with non-vertical PCA (54% vs 61%, P = .40).
CONCLUSIONS: When the steep axis of posterior corneal astigmatism is not vertically orientated, the use of measured posterior keratometry values improves prediction accuracy.

UNASSIGNED: To assess the efficacy and safety of intrastromal lenticule implantation for the treatment of hyperopia.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wan Fang Database identified studies on small-incision intrastromal lenticule implantation for hyperopia correction until January 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of the retrospective research, and the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess the quality of the prospective research. This study included postoperative visual outcomes, corneal morphology, and biomechanical outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 456 articles were identified, of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis. Ten single-arm studies involving 190 eyes were included. A meta-analysis demonstrated that corneal intrastromal lenticule implantation treatment significantly improved hyperopia. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) significantly improved compared to the preoperative value (p = 0.027), corrected distance visual acuity showed no difference compared to the preoperative value (p = 0.27), and 87% eyes have no loss of one or more lines in the Snellen lines of CDVA (p < 0.00001). There was a significant difference between the spherical equivalent refractive (SE) and preoperative examination (p < 0.00001), 52% of eyes had ±0.5 diopters (D) postoperative SE (p < 0.00001), and 74% eyes had ±1.0 D postoperative SE (p < 0.00001). The central corneal thickness (CCT) increased by 72.68 μm compared to that preoperatively (p < 0.00001), and corneal curvature increased by 4.18D (p < 0.00001). The Q-value decreased by 0.82 (p < 0.00001), and higher-order aberration (HOA) decreased by 0.66 (p < 0.00001).
UNASSIGNED: Small-incision intrastromal lenticule implantation may be an effective solution for correcting hyperopia. The effect of improved vision is significant, but further exploration is needed for changes in corneal biomechanics and long-term safety.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42023432343.

BACKGROUND: As the trend of refractive lens exchange for presbyopia continues to grow, our case report shows the first occurrence of an acute bilateral outer retinopathy following uncomplicated sequential clear lens extraction in an otherwise healthy individual.
METHODS: A 54-year-old male without significant medical history benefited from a sequential bilateral lens exchange for presbyopia. He then experienced a rapid vision loss in both eyes, accompanied by photopsias and myodesopsias, with symptoms appearing respectively 4 and 3 weeks after the surgeries. Multimodal imaging revealed a fulminant outer retinopathy, leading to a total loss of light perception within a few days. Immediate intravenous corticosteroid therapy was administered, permitting to recover a small area of central visual function in both eyes, enabling shape and color distinction. The primary diagnostic hypothesis is a presumed autoimmune retinopathy, triggered by the cataract extraction, while an alternative diagnosis could be a toxic reaction secondary to the use of intracameral cefuroxime and lidocaine during the surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: In this report, the authors describe the first recorded instance of outer retinopathy following cataract surgery. This occurrence raises the possibility of auto-immunization leading to retinal atrophy and vision loss as a potential outcome after undergoing cataract surgery.

Dry eye disease is the most common complication and a frequent cause of patient dissatisfaction after corneal laser refractive surgery, which includes laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). It has a complex, multifactorial etiology and is characterized by a highly variable clinical presentation. A detailed preoperative screening and optimization of the ocular surface prior to refractive surgery are the key to minimizing the incidence and severity of postoperative dry eye. Diagnosis of postrefractive surgery dry eye remains a challenge as no single symptom or clinical parameter is confirmative of the condition, and the symptoms and signs may not correlate well in many cases. A thorough understanding of the pathomechanism of the disease and its manifestations is essential to facilitate a treatment approach that is individualized for each patient. This article reviews various aspects of postrefractive surgery dry eye including its epidemiology, etiopathogenesis, risk factors, diagnosis, and management.

UNASSIGNED: To analyze visual outcomes and accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in predicting postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing flanged intrascleral IOL fixation.
UNASSIGNED: Case Series.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-three patients who had undergone secondary IOL placement using flanged intrascleral fixation technique.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective chart review.
UNASSIGNED: Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent based on manifest refraction.
UNASSIGNED: Visual acuity improved from 20/577 to 20/58. Overall, the actual refraction was 0.06 D more myopic than predicted. Holladay 2, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T) and Barrett Universal II resulted in mild myopic surprise (-0.55, -0.18 and -0.20 D). Haigis and Hill-RBF (Radial Basis Function) resulted in mild hyperopic surprise (+0.28 and +0.28 D). Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 were the most accurate (-0.02D and -0.08 D).
UNASSIGNED: Flanged intrascleral IOL fixation improved vision even in patients with other posterior segment pathologies. The effective lens positioning is likely similar to in-the-bag positioning. Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 formulas with in-the-bag calculations were the most accurate.

OBJECTIVE: Our article aims to assess the accuracy of modified and commonly used formulas of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after excimer laser corneal refractive surgery.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study, with data retrieved for 50 eyes of 32 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery after excimer laser corneal refractive surgery. The expected spherical equivalent was calculated using the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) IOL power calculator for Shammas and Barrett True-K, using three-fourth generation formulas (Haigis-L, Barrett True-K no history, and Holladay 2), and using three-third generation formulas (SRKT, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q) with single k, as a reference, and adjusting these formulas by calculating the keratometry readings by two methods (Jarade\'s index and formula). The mean refractive error and mean absolute refractive error (MARE) were calculated at the 1 postoperative month.
RESULTS: When all data was available (eight eyes), 13 formulas were compared. Holladay 1 as modified by Jarade\'s index and formula, and Hoffer Q as modified by Jarade\'s formula resulted in MARE <0.75D (P < 0.05). In the group of 25 eyes with only ablation available, the formulas with MARE <0.75D were Haigis L, Barrett TK (from ASCRS), Hoffer Q, and the three conventional formulas in Jarade\'s index (P < 0.001). In the group of 17 eyes with no available prerefractive data, only Haigis-L and Barret TK (no history) had a MARE <0.75 D.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of Hoffer Q or Holladay 1, when prerefractive data are available, gives reliable results with Jarade\'s index.

暂无摘要。

Smartphone apps are becoming increasingly popular in ophthalmology, one specific area of their application being toric intraocular lens (IOL) surgery for astigmatism correction. Our objective was to identify, review and objectively score smartphone apps applicable to toric IOL calculation and/or axis alignment. This review was divided into three phases. A review was conducted on four major app databases (phase I): National Health Service (NHS) Apps Library, Google Play Store, Apple App Store and Amazon Appstore. A systematic literature review (phase II) was conducted to identify studies for included apps in phase I of our study. Keywords used in both searches included: \"toric lens\", \"toric IOL\", \"refraction\", \"astigmatism\", \"ophthalmology\", \"eye calculator\", \"ophthalmology calculator\" and \"refractive calculator\". Included apps were objectively scored (phase III) by three independent reviewers using the mobile app rating scale (MARS), a validated tool that ranks the quality of mobile health apps using a calculated mean app quality (MAQ) score. Phase I of our study screened 2428 smartphone apps, of which six apps for toric IOL calculation and four apps for axis marking were eligible and were selected for quantitative analysis. Phase II of our study screened 477 studies from PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar. Three studies validating two apps (toriCAM, iToric Patwardhan) in a clinical setting as adjunct tools for preoperative axis marking were identified. Phase III ranked Toric Calculator for iPhone (Apple iOS, MAQ 4.13; average MAQ 3.34 ± 0.54) as the highest-scoring toric IOL calculator, and iToric Patwardhan (Android OS, MAQ 4.13; average MAQ 3.41 ± 0.44) was the highest-scoring axis marker in our study. Our review identified and objectively scored ten smartphone apps available for toric IOL surgery adjuncts. Toric Calculator for iPhone and iToric Patwardhan were the highest-scoring toric IOL calculator and axis marker, respectively. Current literature, though limited, suggests that axis marking smartphone apps can achieve similar levels of misalignment reduction when compared to digital systems.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the biometric features of keratoconic eyes using the Lenstar LS900 and Pentacam systems relative to healthy myopic eyes.
METHODS: Seventy-three eyes of keratoconic subjects and 83 eyes of control subjects were enrolled. To evaluate the reproducibility of the Lenstar and Pentacam devices\' measurements, keratometric readings [in flattest meridian (Kf), in steepest meridian (Ks), and mean (Km)], central corneal thickness (CCT), and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were obtained using both systems. Axial length and lens thickness (LT) were measured by the Lenstar. The compatibility between the two devices was investigated using the Bland-Altman statistical method.
RESULTS: Axial length was longer in the myopic group than in eyes with keratoconus (24.94  ±  0.7 and 23.88  ±  0.96 mm, respectively, p < 0.001). LT and vitreous depth were also higher in the myopic group, although ACD values were similar. Compared to the Lenstar, the Pentacam measured the ACD and CCT values higher in the myopia group [with a difference of 0.07  ±  0.12 mm (p <0.001) and 4.47  ±  11.33 µm (p  =  0.001), respectively] and measured the CCT values higher in the keratoconus group. Pentacam found all keratometry values significantly lower than Lenstar in the keratoconus group.
CONCLUSIONS: Axial length was longer in the myopic eyes due to the differences starting from the lens and extending to the posterior segment. Lenstar and Pentacam can be used interchangeably for Km, Kf, and ACD in the myopic group and only for ACD in the keratoconus group.