Clinical evaluation of the Softec HD aberration-free aspheric intraocular lens

Purpose: To compare distance and near visual performance with a zero-aberration aspheric intraocular lens (IOL) (Softec HD, Lenstec, Inc. FL, USA) with that of an otherwise identical, but spherical IOL (Softec 1). Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Solihull Hospital, West Midlands, United Kingdom. Methods: This prospective study comprised 37 patients with a Softec 1 spherical IOL implanted in one eye, who underwent phacoemulsification and received the Softec HD aspheric IOL in the fellow eye. One month post-operatively, unaided distance and near vision, residual refraction, best spectacle corrected distance and near visual acuity, reading speed, pseudoaccommodation and photopic contrast sensitivity were recorded. Wavefront analysis enabled comparison of higher order aberrations between the IOLs. Results: Prior to surgery, the Softec 1 and Softec HD eyes were not significantly different. Post-operatively, unaided vision, best spectacle corrected visual acuity and residual refraction were not significantly different between the eyes, nor were there significant differences observed between the measured wavefront aberrations. Once implanted, the range of focus was significantly better in the Softec HD IOL eye than the Softec 1 IOL eye and, although reading speed was equivalent to the Softec 1 eye, the print size at which this could be achieved was significantly smaller. Conclusions: Depth of field was significantly improved with the aspheric IOL compared with the spherical IOL, without any compromise in distance visual performance between the two IOLs.

Rotational and centration stability of an aspheric intraocular lens with a simulated toric design

Purpose: To assess the stability of the Akreos AO intraocular lens (IOL) platform with a simulated toric design using objective image analysis. Setting: Six hospital eye clinics across Europe. Methods: After implantation in 1 eye of patients, IOLs with orientation marks were imaged at 1 to 2 days, 7 to 14 days, 30 to 60 days, and 120 to 180 days. The axis of rotation and IOL centration were objectively assessed using validated image analysis. Results: The study enrolled 107 patients with a mean age of 69.9 years ± 7.7 (SD). The image quality was sufficient for IOL rotation analysis in 91% of eyes. The mean rotation between the first day postoperatively and 120 to 180 days was 1.93 ± 2.33 degrees, with 96% of IOLs rotating fewer than 5 degrees and 99% rotating fewer than 10 degrees. There was no significant rotation between visits and no clear bias in the direction of rotation. In 71% of eyes, the dilation and image quality was sufficient for image analysis of centration. The mean change in centration between 1 day and 120 to 180 days was 0.21 ± 0.11 mm, with all IOLs decentering less than 0.5 mm. There was no significant decentration between visits and no clear bias in the direction of the decentration. Conclusion: Objective analysis of digital retroillumination images taken at different postoperative periods shows the aspheric IOL platform was stable in the eye and is therefore suitable for the application of a toric surface to correct corneal astigmatism.

Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens

Aim: To evaluate the performance of an aspheric diffractive multifocal acrylic intraocular lens (IOL), ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis. Setting: Five sites across Europe. Methods: Fifty-two patients with cataracts (average age 68.5±10.5 years, 35 female) were bilaterally implanted with the aspheric diffractive multifocal IOL after completing a questionnaire regarding their optical visual symptoms, use of visual correction and their visual satisfaction. The questionnaire was completed again 4-6 months after surgery along with measures of uncorrected and best-corrected distance and near visual acuity, under photopic and mesopic lighting, reading ability, defocus curve testing and ocular examination for adverse events. Results: The residual refractive error was 0.01±0.47D with 56% of eyes within ±0.25D and 97% within ±1.0D. Uncorrected visual acuity was 0.02±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.15±0.30 logMAR at near, only reducing to 0.07±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.21±0.25logMAR at near in mesopic conditions.The defocus curve showed a near addition between 2.5-3.0 D allowing a reading acuity of 0.08±0.13 logMAR, with a range of clear vision <0.3 logMAR of ∼4.0 D. The average reading speed was 121.4±30.8 words per minute. Spectacle independence was 100% for distance and 88% for near, with high levels of satisfaction reported. Overall rating of vision without glasses could be explained (r=0.760) by preoperative best-corrected distance acuity, postoperative reading acuity and postoperative uncorrected distance acuity in photopic conditions (p<0.001). Only two minor adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis multifocal IOL provides a good visual outcome at distance and near with minimal adverse effects.

Objective analysis of toric intraocular lens rotation and centration

PURPOSE: To assess the repeatability of an objective image analysis technique to determine intraocular lens (IOL) rotation and centration. SETTING: Six ophthalmology clinics across Europe. METHODS: One-hundred seven patients implanted with Akreos AO aspheric IOLs with orientation marks were imaged. Image quality was rated by a masked observer. The axis of rotation was determined from a line bisecting the IOL orientation marks. This was normalized for rotation of the eye between visits using the axis bisecting 2 consistent conjunctival vessels or iris features. The center of ovals overlaid to circumscribe the IOL optic edge and the pupil or limbus were compared to determine IOL centration. Intrasession repeatability was assessed in 40 eyes and the variability of repeated analysis examined. RESULTS: Intrasession rotational stability of the IOL was ±0.79 degrees (SD) and centration was ±0.10 mm horizontally and ±0.10 mm vertically. Repeated analysis variability of the same image was ±0.70 degrees for rotation and ±0.20 mm horizontally and ±0.31 mm vertically for centration. Eye rotation (absolute) between visits was 2.23 ± 1.84 degrees (10%>5 degrees rotation) using one set of consistent conjunctival vessels or iris features and 2.03 ± 1.66 degrees (7%>5 degrees rotation) using the average of 2 sets (P =.13). Poorer image quality resulted in larger apparent absolute IOL rotation (r =-0.45,P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Objective analysis of digital retroillumination images allows sensitive assessment of IOL rotation and centration stability. Eye rotation between images can lead to significant errors if not taken into account. Image quality is important to analysis accuracy.

Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision

Purpose. To compare visual function with the Bausch & Lomb PureVision multifocal contact lens to monovision with PureVision single vision contact lenses. Methods. Twenty presbyopic subjects were fitted with either the PureVision multifocal contact lens or monovision with PureVision singlevision lenses. Aftera 1-month trial, the following assessments of visual function were made: (a) distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (VA); (b) reading ability; (c) distance and near contrast sensitivity function (CSF); (d) near range of clear vision; (e) stereoacuity; and (f) subjective evaluation of near vision ability with a standardized questionnaire. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated. All measurements were compared between the two corrections, whereas the ``low addition'' multifocal lens was also compared with the ``high addition'' alternative. Results. Distance and near VA were significantly better with monovision than with the multifocal option (p < 0.05). Intermediate VA (p = 0.13) was similar with both corrections, whereas there was also no significant difference in distance and near CSF (p = 0.29 on both occasions). Reading speeds (p = 0.48) and the critical print size (p = 0.90) were not significantly different between the two contact lens corrections, but stereoacuity (p < 0.01) and the near range of clear vision (p < 0.05) were significantly better with the multifocal option than with monovision. Subjective assessment of near ability was similar for both types of contact lens (p = 0.52). The high addition multifocal lens produced significantly poorer distance and near CSF, near VA, and critical print size compared with the low addition alternative. Conclusions. Monovision performed better than a center-near aspheric simultaneous vision multifocal contact lens of the same material for distance and near VA only. The multifocal option provides better stereoacuity and near range of clear vision, with little differences in CSF, so a better balance of real-world visual function may be achieved due to minimal binocular disruption. (Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:98-105)

Future of contact lens usage

I was recently part of a small committee looking at higher qualifications in contact lens practice and the discussion turned to future technologies. There was mention of different materials and different applications of contact lenses. Drug delivery with contact lenses was discussed as this has been talked about in the literature for a while. The first paper I could find that talked about using contact lenses for drug delivery dates back over 40 years. There was a review paper in CLAE in 2008 that looked specifically at this too [1]. However, where are these products? Why are we not seeing them in the market place? Maybe the technology is not quite there yet, or maybe patents are prohibiting usage or maybe the market is not big enough to develop such products? We do have lenses on the market with slow release of lubricating agents but not therapeutic agents used for ocular or systemic conditions. Contact lenses with pathogen detectors may be part of our contact lens armoury of the future and again we can already see papers in the literature that have trialled this technology for glucose monitoring in diabetics or lactate concentration in the tear film. Future contact lenses may incorporate better optics based on aberration control and we see this starting to emerge with aspheric designs designed to minimise spherical aberration. Irregular corneas can be fitted with topography based designs and again this technology exists and is being used by some manufacturers in their designs already. Moreover, the topography based fitting of irregular corneas is certainly something we see a lot of today and CLAE has seen many articles related to this over the last decade or so. What about further into the future? Well one interesting area must the 3-dimensional contact lenses, or contact lenses with electronic devices built in that simulate a display screen. A little like the virtual display spectacles that are already sold by electronics companies. It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to see a large electronic company taking this technology on and making it viable. Will we see people on the train watching movies on these electronic virtual reality contact lenses? I think we will, but when is harder to know.

Objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics with the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens

PURPOSE. To compare the objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics of eyes implanted with the one-compartment-unit (1CU; HumanOptics AG, Erlangen, Germany) accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) with that measured subjectively. METHODS. Twenty eyes with a 1CU accommodative IOL implanted were refracted and distance and near acuity measured with a logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) chart. The objective accommodative stimulus-response curve for static targets between 0.17 and 4.00 D accommodative demand was measured with the SRW-5000 (Shin-Nippon Commerce Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and PowerRefractor (PlusOptiX, Nürnberg, Germany) autorefractors. Continuous objective recording of dynamic accommodation was measured with the SRW-5000, with the subject viewing a target moving from 0 to 2.50 D at 0.3 Hz through a Badal lens system. Wavefront aberrometry measures (Zywave; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) were made through undilated pupils. Subjective amplitude of accommodation was measured with the RAF (Royal Air Force accommodation and vergence measurement) rule. RESULTS. Four months after implantation best-corrected acuity was -0.01 ± 0.16 logMAR at distance and 0.60 ± 0.09 logMAR at near. Objectively, the static amplitude of accommodation was 0.72 ± 0.38 D. The average dynamic amplitude of accommodation was 0.71 ± 0.47 D, with a lag behind the target of 0.50 ± 0.48 seconds. Aberrometry showed a decrease in power of the lens-eye combination from the center to the periphery in all subjects (on average, -0.38 ± 0.28 D/mm). Subjective amplitude of accommodation was 2.24 ± 0.42 D. Two years after 1CU implantation, refractive error and distance visual acuity remained relatively stable, but near visual acuity, and the subjective and objective amplitudes of accommodation decreased. CONCLUSIONS. The objective accommodating effects of the 1CU lens appear to be limited, although patients are able to track a moving target. Subjective and objective accommodation was reduced at the 2-year follow-up. The greater subjective amplitude of accommodation is likely to result from the eye's depth of focus of and the aspheric nature of the IOL. Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

Visual performance of a new bi-aspheric, segmented, asymmetric multifocal IOL

PURPOSE: To assess the visual performance and subjective experience of eyes implanted with a new bi-aspheric, segmented, multifocal intraocular lens: the Mplus X (Topcon Europe Medical, Capelle aan den IJssel, Netherlands). METHODS: Seventeen patients (mean age: 64.0 ± 12.8 years) had binocular implantation (34 eyes) with the Mplus X. Three months after the implantation, assessment was made of: manifest refraction; uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity; uncorrected and distance corrected near visual acuity; defocus curves in photopic conditions; contrast sensitivity; halometry as an objective measure of glare; and patient satisfaction with unaided near vision using the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean residual manifest refraction was -0.13 ± 0.51 diopters (D). Twenty-five eyes (74%) were within a mean spherical equivalent of ±0.50 D. Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was +0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR monocularly and 0.02 ± 0.09 logMAR binocularly. Thirty-two eyes (94%) could read 0.3 or better without any reading correction and all patients could read 0.3 or better with a reading correction. Mean monocular uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.18 ± 0.16 logMAR, improving to 0.15 ± 0.15 logMAR with distance correction. Mean binocular uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.11 ± 0.11 logMAR, improving to 0.09 ± 0.12 logMAR with distance correction. Mean binocular contrast sensitivity was 1.75 ± 0.14 log units at 3 cycles per degree, 1.88 ± 0.20 log units at 6 cycles per degree, 1.66 ± 0.19 log units at 12 cycles per degree, and 1.11 ± 0.20 log units at 18 cycles per degree. Mean binocular and monocular halometry showed a glare profile of less than 1° of debilitating light scatter. Mean Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire Rasch score (0 = no difficulty, 100 = extreme difficulty) for satisfaction for near vision was 20.43 ± 14.64 log-odd units. CONCLUSIONS: The Mplus X provides a good visual outcome at distance and near with minimal dysphotopsia. Patients were very satisfied with their uncorrected near vision. © SLACK Incorporated.

Determining which factors influence the optimum multifocal contact lens correction for presbyopia

Presbyopia is a consequence of ageing and is therefore increasing inprevalence due to an increase in the ageing population. Of the many methods available to manage presbyopia, the use of contact lenses is indeed a tried and tested reversible option for those wishing to be spectacle free. Contact lens options to correct presbyopia include multifocal contact lenses and monovision.Several options have been available for many years with available guides to help choose multifocal contact lenses. However there is no comprehensive way to help the practitioner selecting the best option for an individual. An examination of the simplest way of predicting the most suitable multifocal lens for a patient will only enhance and add to the current evidence available. The purpose of the study was to determine the current use of presbyopic correction modalities in an optometric practice population in the UK and to evaluate and compare the optical performance of four silicone hydrogel soft multifocal contact lenses and to compare multifocal performance with contact lens monovision. The presbyopic practice cohort principal forms of refractive correction were distance spectacles (with near and intermediate vision providedby a variety of other forms of correction), varifocal spectacles and unaided distance with reading spectacles, with few patients wearing contact lenses as their primary correction modality. The results of the multifocal contact lens randomised controlled trial showed that there were only minor differences in corneal physiology between the lens options. Visual acuity differences were observed for distance targets, but only for low contrast letters and under mesopic lighting conditions. At closer distances between 20cm and 67cm, the defocus curves demonstrated that there were significant differences in acuity between lens designs (p < 0.001) and there was an interaction between the lens design and the level of defocus (p < 0.001). None of the lenses showed a clear near addition, perhaps due to their more aspheric rather than zoned design. As expected, stereoacuity was reduced with monovision compared with the multifocal contact lens designs, although there were some differences between the multifocal lens designs (p < 0.05). Reading speed did not differ between lens designs (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), whereas there was a significant difference in critical print size (F = 7.543, p < 0.001). Glare was quantified with a novel halometer and halo size was found to significantly differ between lenses(F = 4.101, p = 0.004). The rating of iPhone image clarity was significantly different between presbyopic corrections (p = 0.002) as was the Near Acuity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) rating of near performance (F = 3.730, p = 0.007).The pupil size did not alter with contact lens design (F = 1.614, p = 0.175), but was larger in the dominant eye (F = 5.489, p = 0.025). Pupil decentration relative to the optical axis did not alter with contact lens design (F = 0.777, p =0.542), but was also greater in the dominant eye (F = 9.917, p = 0.003). It was interesting to note that there was no difference in spherical aberrations induced between the contact lens designs (p > 0.05), with eye dominance (p > 0.05) oroptical component (ocular, corneal or internal: p > 0.05). In terms of subjective patient lens preference, 10 patients preferred monovision,12 Biofinity multifocal lens, 7 Purevision 2 for Presbyopia, 4 AirOptix multifocal and 2 Oasys multifocal contact lenses. However, there were no differences in demographic factors relating to lifestyle or personality, or physiological characteristics such as pupil size or ocular aberrations as measured at baseline,which would allow a practitioner to identify which lens modality the patient would prefer. In terms of the performance of patients with their preferred lens, it emerged that Biofinity multifocal lens preferring patients had a better high contrast acuity under photopic conditions, maintained their reading speed at smaller print sizes and subjectively rated iPhone clarity as better with this lens compared with the other lens designs trialled. Patients who preferred monovision had a lower acuity across a range of distances and a larger area of glare than those patients preferring other lens designs that was unexplained by the clinical metrics measured. However, it seemed that a complex interaction of aberrations may drive lens preference. New clinical tests or more diverse lens designs which may allow practitioners to prescribe patients the presbyopic contact lens option that will work best for them first time remains a hope for the future.

Developments in contact lens measurement:a comparative study of industry standard geometric inspection and optical coherence tomography

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare a developmental optical coherence tomography (OCT) based contact lens inspection instrument to a widely used geometric inspection instrument (Optimec JCF), to establish the capability of a market focused OCT system. Methods: Measurements of 27 soft spherical contact lenses were made using the Optimec JCF and a new OCT based instrument, the Optimec is830. Twelve of the lenses analysed were specially commissioned from a traditional hydrogel (Contamac GM Advance 49%) and 12 from a silicone hydrogel (Contamac Definitive 65), each set with a range of back optic zone radius (BOZR) and centre thickness (CT) values. Three commercial lenses were also measured; CooperVision MyDay (Stenfilcon A) in −10D, −3D and +6D powers. Two measurements of BOZR, CT and total diameter were made for each lens in temperature controlled saline on both instruments. Results: The results showed that the is830 and JCF measurements were comparable, but that the is830 had a better repeatability coefficient for BOZR (0.065 mm compared to 0.151 mm) and CT (0.008 mm compared to 0.027 mm). Both instruments had similar results for total diameter (0.041 mm compared to 0.044 mm). Conclusions: The OCT based instrument assessed in this study is able to match and improve on the JCF instrument for the measurement of total diameter, back optic zone radius and centre thickness for soft contact lenses in temperature controlled saline.

Simplified recording of soft contact lens fit

Purpose: To determine the critical fitting characteristics of modern soft contact lens fits and from this to devise a simplified recording scheme. Methods: Ten subjects (aged 28.1 ± 7.4 years) wore eight different modern soft contact lenses. Video was captured and analysed of blink (central and up-gaze), excursion lag (up, down, right and left gaze) and push-up movement, centration and coverage. Results: Lens centration was on average close to the corneal centre. Movement on blink was significantly smaller in up-gaze than in primary-gaze (p<0.001). Lag was greatest in down-gaze and least in up-gaze (p<0.001). Push-up test recovery speed was 1.32±0.73mm/s. Overall lens movement was determined best by assessing horizontal lag, movement on blink in up-gaze and push-up recovery speed. Steeper lens base-curves did not have a significant effect on lens fit characteristics. Contact lens material did influence lens fit characteristics, particularly silicone-hydrogels which generally had lower centration and a faster push-up speed of recovery than HEMA lenses (p<0.05). Conclusion: Lag on vertical gaze, and movement on blink in primary gaze generally provide little extra information on overall lens movement compared to horizontal lag, movement on blink in up gaze and push-up recovery speed. They can therefore be excluded from a simplified recording scheme. A simplified and comprehensive soft contact lens fit recording system could consist of a cross-hairs indicating the centre of the cornea; a circle to indicate the lens centration; a mark on the relevant position of the circle to indicate any limbal incursion; a grade (‘B’) below for movement with blink in up-gaze, a grade (‘L’) to the side for horizontal lag and a grade above (‘P’) for the assessed push-up recovery speed.

The influence of corneoscleral topography on soft contact lens fit

To evaluate the influence of peripheral ocular topography, as evaluated by optical coherence tomography (OCT), compared with traditional measures of corneal profile using keratometry and videokeratoscopy, on soft contact lens fit.

Conjunctival epithelial flaps with 18 months of silicone hydrogel contact lens wear

Purpose. To report differences in the incidence of conjunctival epithelial flaps (CEFs) found in a group of neophyte contact wearers using two different silicone hydrogel contact lenses on a daily- and continuous-wear basis during an 18-month period. Methods. Sixty-one subjects were initially examined, and 53 were eligible to participate in the study. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned to wear one of two silicone hydrogel materials, lotrafilcon A or balafilcon A, on a daily- or continuous-wear basis. After an initial screening, subjects were monitored weekly for the first month and then after 3, 6, 12, and IS months. The incidence of CEFs in each of the four contact lens groups was recorded. Results. Five of the 53 subjects enrolled in the study showed bilateral CEFs. A higher incidence of CEFs was found in subjects wearing lotrafilcon A lenses (n = 4) compared to balafilcon A lenses (it = 1) (chi(2) = 4.37, P=0.04). Differences in the incidence of CEFs between subjects wearing lenses on a daily-wear basis (n = 1) versus a continuous-wear basis (it = 4) showed a weak statistical significance (chi(2) = 3.03, P=0.08). Conclusions. Lotrafilcon A lenses were associated with a higher incidence of CEFs than balafilcon A lenses were, and this difference may be attributed to differences in the edge design, material, or modulus of rigidity between the two lens types. Subjects wearing lenses on a daily-wear basis showed fewer adverse events than did subjects wearing lenses on a continuous-wear basis. The longer wearing times of subjects wearing lenses on a continuous-wear basis are likely to exacerbate the incidence of CEFs.

Do tinted spectacle lens wearers have a different personality?

The wearing of tinted spectacle lenses is considered by some health care workers to be a marker of psychopathology or a hypochondriacal personality type. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between the wearing of tinted spectacle lenses and personality type in physically healthy subjects. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire 5th Edition, a multidimensional standardized self-report inventory, was used to determine the personality type of 98 participants. Twenty currently wore tinted spectacle lenses for reasons other than ocular disease, sun protection, outdoor or indoor glare reduction, pattern sensitive epilepsy, migraines, reading difficulties or fashion. The remainder did not wear tinted spectacle lenses for any purpose other than sun protection. Tinted lens wear and no tinted lens wear groups were age and gender matched. There was no statistically significant difference in five global personality factors between the no-tint and tint groups: extraversion (p = 0.31), anxiety (p = 0.75), tough-mindedness (p = 0.96), independence (p = 0.63), and self-control (p = 0.87). This suggests that the use of tinted lenses by physically healthy people is unlikely to be an indicator of personality type. © 2007 The Author.

Examining the strategy development process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory

The development of strategy remains a debate for academics and a concern for practitioners. Published research has focused on producing models for strategy development and on studying how strategy is developed in organisations. The Operational Research literature has highlighted the importance of considering complexity within strategic decision making; but little has been done to link strategy development with complexity theories, despite organisations and organisational environments becoming increasingly more complex. We review the dominant streams of strategy development and complexity theories. Our theoretical investigation results in the first conceptual framework which links an established Strategic Operational Research model, the Strategy Development Process model, with complexity via Complex Adaptive Systems theory. We present preliminary findings from the use of this conceptual framework applied to a longitudinal, in-depth case study, to demonstrate the advantages of using this integrated conceptual model. Our research shows that the conceptual model proposed provides rich data and allows for a more holistic examination of the strategy development process. © 2012 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved.