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.

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 outcomes after implantation of a new hydrophobic acrylic toric IOL during routine cataract surgery

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical outcomes after implantation of a new hydrophobic acrylic toric intraocular lens (IOL) to correct preexisting corneal astigmatism in patients having routine cataract surgery. SETTING: Four hospital eye clinics throughout Europe. DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: This study included eyes with at least 0.75 diopter (D) of preexisting corneal astigmatism having routine cataract surgery. Phacoemulsification was performed followed by insertion and alignment of a Tecnis toric IOL. Patients were examined 4 to 8 weeks postoperatively; uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, and keratometry were measured. Individual patient satisfaction with uncorrected vision and the surgeon’s assessment of ease of handling and performance of the IOL were also documented. The cylinder axis of the toric IOL was determined by dilated slitlamp examination. RESULTS: The study enrolled 67 eyes of 60 patients. Four to 8 weeks postoperatively, the mean UDVA was 0.15 logMAR G 0.17 (SD) and the UDVA was 20/40 or better in 88% of eyes. The mean refractive cylinder decreased significantly postoperatively, from -1.91 +/- 1.07 D to -0.67 +/- 0.54 D. No significant change in keratometric cylinder was observed. The mean absolute IOL misalignment from the intended axis was 3.4 degrees (range 0 to 12 degrees). The good UDVA resulted in high levels of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Implantation of the new toric IOL was an effective, safe, and predictable method to manage corneal astigmatism in patients having routine cataract surgery.

Evaluating the effect of splitting cylindrical power on improving patient tolerance to toric lens misalignment

Purpose: Evaluating the impact of splitting toric power on patient tolerance to misorientation such as with intraocular lens rotation. Setting: University vision clinic. Methods: Healthy, non astigmats had +1.50D astigmatism induced with spectacle lenses at 90°, 135°, 180° and +3.00D at 90°. Two correcting cylindrical lenses of the opposite sign and half the power each were subsequently added to the trial frame misaligned by 0°, 5° or 10° in a random order and misorientated from the initial axis in a clockwise direction by up to 15° in 5° steps. A second group of adapted astigmats with between 1.00 and 3.00DC had their astigmatism corrected with two toric spectacle lenses of half the power separated by 0°, 5° or 10° and misorientated from the initial axis in both directions by up to 15° in 5° steps. Distance, high contrast visual acuity was measured using a computerised test chart at each lens misalignment and misorientation. Results: Misorientation of the split toric lenses caused a statistically significant drop in visual acuity (F= 70.341; p< 0.001). Comparatively better acuities were observed around 180°, as anticipated (F= 3.775; p= 0.035). Misaligning the split toric power produced no benefit in visual acuity retention with axis misorientation when subjects had astigmatism induced with a low (F= 2.190, p= 0.129) or high cylinder (F= 0.491, p= 0.617) or in the adapted astigmats (F= 0.120, p= 0.887). Conclusion: Misalignment of toric lens power split across the front and back lens surfaces had no beneficial effect on distance visual acuity, but also no negative effect. © 2013 British Contact Lens Association.

Comparison of fitting stability of the different soft toric contact lenses

Purpose: To compare lens orientation and rotational recovery of five currently available soft toric lenses. Methods: Twenty subjects were recruited and trialed with each of the study lenses in a random order. Study lenses were PureVision® Toric (B&L), Air Optix® for Astigmatism (Alcon), Biofinity® Toric (CooperVision), Acuvue® Advance for Astigmatism (Vistakon), and Proclear® Toric (CooperVision). Lens orientation in primary position to determine the lens rotation form the vertical position and rotational recovery to primary gaze orientation following a 45° manual misorientation for the different lenses was compared. Results: The Biofinity Toric showed the lowest rotation from the vertical position and the Proclear Toric the highest. Also, the highest and the lowest reorientation speed were related to the Biofinity Toric and the Acuvue Advance for Astigmatism, respectively. The Repeated Measures ANOVA showed a significant difference in the lens rotation (P=. 0.004) and rotational recovery (P<. 0.001) among different contact lenses and the performed multiple comparisons indicated differences in rotation and also in reorientation speed were only seen between the Biofinity Toric when compared to four other lenses (P<. 0.05). Conclusion: Although there was appropriate fitting, based upon lens orientation and reorientation speed, with each of the study lenses it would appear that the optimized ballast technique used in the design of the Biofinity Toric helps reduce lens rotation and improve rotational recovery compared to others.

Surgical correction of astigmatism during cataract surgery

High levels of corneal astigmatism are prevalent in a significant proportion of the population. During cataract surgery pre-existing astigmatism can be corrected using single or paired incisions on the steep axis of the cornea, using relaxing incisions or with the use of a toric intraocular lens. This review provides an overview of the conventional methods of astigmatic correction during cataract surgery and in particular, discusses the various types of toric lenses presently available and the techniques used in determining the correct axis for the placement of such lenses. Furthermore, the potential causes of rotation in toric lenses are identified, along with techniques for assessing and quantifying the amount of rotation and subsequent management options for addressing post-operative rotation.

Requirement for and optimisation of premium intraocular lenses

Premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) aim to surgically correct astigmatism and presbyopia following cataract extraction, optimising vision and eliminating the need for cataract surgery in later years. It is usual to fully correct astigmatism and to provide visual correction for distance and near when prescribing spectacles and contact lenses, however for correction with the lens implanted during cataract surgery, patients are required to purchase the premium IOLs and pay surgery fees outside the National Health Service in the UK. The benefit of using toric IOLs was thus demonstrated, both in standard visual tests and real-world situations. Orientation of toric IOLs during implantation is critical and the benefit of using conjunctival blood vessels for alignment was shown. The issue of centration of IOLs relative to the pupil was also investigated, showing changes with the amount of dilation and repeat dilation evaluation, which must be considered during surgery to optimize the visual performance of premium IOLs. Presbyopia is a global issue, of growing importance as life expectancy increases, with no real long-term cure. Despite enhanced lifestyles, changes in diet and improved medical care, presbyopia still presents in modern life as a significant visual impairment. The onset of presbyopia was found to vary with risk factors including alcohol consumption, smoking, UV exposure and even weight as well as age. A new technique to make measurement of accommodation more objective and robust was explored, although needs for further design modifications were identified. Due to dysphotopsia and lack of intermediate vision through most multifocal IOL designs, the development of a trifocal IOL was shown to minimize these aspects. The current thesis, therefore, emphasises the challenges of premium IOL surgery and need for refinement for optimum visual outcome in addition to outlining how premium IOLs may provide long-term and successful correction of astigmatism and presbyopia.

Evaluation of modern intraocular lenses

Accommodating Intraocular Lenses (IOLs), multifocal IOLs (MIOLs) and toric IOLs are designed to provide a greater level of spectacle independency post cataract surgery. All of these IOLs are reliant on the accurate calculation of intraocular lens power determined through reliable ocular biometry. A standardised defocus area metric and reading performance index metric were devised for the evaluation of the range of focus and the reading ability of subjects implanted with presbyopic correcting IOLs. The range of clear vision after implantation of an MIOL is extended by a second focal point; however, this results in the prevalence of dysphotopsia. A bespoke halometer was designed and validated to assess this photopic phenomenon. There is a lack of standardisation in the methods used for determining IOL orientation and thus rotation. A repeatable, objective method was developed to allow the accurate assessment of IOL rotation, which was used to determine the rotational and positional stability of a closed loop haptic IOL. A new commercially available biometry device was validated for use with subjects prior to cataract surgery. The optical low coherence reflectometry instrument proved to be a valid method for assessing ocular biometry and covered a wider range of ocular parameters in comparison with previous instruments. The advantages of MIOLs were shown to include an extended range of clear vision translating into greater reading ability. However, an increased prevalence of dysphotopsia was shown with a bespoke halometer, which was dependent on the MIOL optic design. Implantation of a single optic accommodating IOL did not improve reading ability but achieved high subjective ratings of near vision. The closed-loop haptic IOL displayed excellent rotational stability in the late period but relatively poor rotational stability in the early period post implantation. The orientation error was compounded by the high frequency of positional misalignment leading to an extensive overall misalignment of the IOL. This thesis demonstrates the functionality of new IOL lens designs and the importance of standardised testing methods, thus providing a greater understanding of the consequences of implanting these IOLs. Consequently, the findings of the thesis will influence future designs of IOLs and testing methods.

Specialist contact lens fitting

What is meant by the term ‘specialist contact lens fitting’? Or put another way, what would be considered non-specialist contact lens fitting? Is there such a thing as routine contact lens fitting? Soft or silicone hydrogel fitting for daily wear would probably be considered as routine contact lens fitting, but would extended or flexible wear remain in the same category or would they be considered a specialist fit? Different eras will classify different products as being ‘specialist’. Certainly twenty years ago soft toric contact lenses were considered as being speciality lenses but today would be thought of as routine lenses. Conversely, gas permeable lenses were thought of as mainstream twenty years ago but now are considered as speciality lenses. Although this would not be the same globally, as in some countries (such as Netherlands, France and Japan) gas permeable lens fitting remains popular and is not on the decline as in other countries (Canada, Australia and Sweden) [1]. Bandage soft lenses applied after surface laser refractive procedures would be considered as therapeutic lenses but in reality they are just plano thin hydrogel lenses worn constantly for 3–4 days to allow the underlying epithelium to convalesce and are then removed [2]. Some patients find that wearing hydrogel lenses during periods when they suffer from seasonal allergies actually improves their ocular comfort as the contact lens acts as a barrier to the allergen [3] and [4]. Scleral lenses have long been considered speciality lenses, apart from a time when they were the only lenses available but at that time all contact lens work would have been considered speciality practice! Nowadays we see the advent of mini-scleral designs and we see large diameter gas permeable lenses too. It is possible that these lenses increase the popularity of gas permeable lenses again and they become more main stream. So it would seem that the lines between routine and speciality contact lens fitting are not clear. Whether a lens is classed a specialist fit or not would depend on the lens type, why it was fitted, where in the world the fitting was being done and even the era in which it was fitted. This begs the question as to what would be considered entry level knowledge in contact lens fitting. This may not be an issue for most BCLA members or CLAE readers but certainly would be for bodies such as the College of Optometrists (UK) or the Association of British Dispensing Opticians when they are planning the final registration examinations for budding practitioners or when planning the level of higher level qualifications such as College Certificates or Diplomas. Similarly for training institutions when they are planning their course content. This becomes even trickier when trying to devise a qualification that spans across many countries, like the European Diploma in Optometry and Optics. How do we know if the training and examination level is correct? One way would be to analyse things when they go wrong and if patterns of malpractice are seen then maybe that could be used as an indicator to more training being needed. There were 162 Fitness to Practice Hearing at the General Optical Council between 2001 and 2010. Forty-seven of these were clinically related case, 39 fraud related, and 76 others. Of the clinical ones only 3 were contact lens related. So it would appear that as whole, in the profession, contact lens clinical skills are not being questioned too often (although it seems a few of us can’t keep our hands out the cookie jar!).

Astigmatism and vision:should all astigmatism always be corrected?

As technology and medical devices improve, there is much interest in when and how astigmatism should be corrected with refractive surgery. Astigmatism can be corrected by most forms of refractive surgery, such as using excimer lasers algorithms to ablate the cornea to compensate for the magnitude of refractive error in different meridians. Correction of astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery is well developed and can be achieved through incision placement, relaxing incisions and toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. This was less of an issue in the past when there was a lower expectation to be spectacle independent after cataract surgery, in which case the residual refractive error, including astigmatism, could be compensated for with spectacle lenses. The issue of whether presurgical astigmatism should be corrected can be considered separately depending on whether a patient has residual accommodation, and the type of refractive surgery under consideration. We have previously reported on the visual impact of full correction of astigmatism, rather than just correcting the mean spherical equivalent. Correction of astigmatism as low as 1.00 dioptres significantly improves objective and subjective measures of functional vision in prepresbyopes at distance and near.

Refracting the pseudophakic patient

Pseudophakic patients are frequently encountered in optometric practice, often the result of cataract extraction but also presbyopia correction. Given advances in technology and surgery, the demand for intraocular lenses for correcting a variety of refractive requirements has increased owing to an ageing population. Based on the patient’s needs, either fixed focus, toric, accommodating or multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) may be implanted. During optometric examination, attention should be drawn to a history of IOLs and the potential complications they may cause in order to manage them effectively, particularly where sight is threatened. Although objective and subjective refraction does not differ greatly between phakic and pseudophakic patients, care should be taken to set the patient up correctly and the reflex during retinoscopy observed for posterior sub-capsular opacification. Additional tests such as reading speed, and glare and contrast sensitivity are necessary to determine the outcome of IOL surgery and detect potential problems associated with multifocal and accommodating IOLs. Based upon the results of these tests, refraction, and type of IOL, contact lens or spectacle correction may be required to meet the visual demands of the patient.

Optical quality and visual performance with customised soft contact lenses for keratoconus

Purpose: This study investigated how aberration-controlling, customised soft contact lenses corrected higher-order ocular aberrations and visual performance in keratoconic patients compared to other forms of refractive correction (spectacles and rigid gas-permeable lenses). Methods: Twenty-two patients (16 rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers and six spectacle wearers) were fitted with standard toric soft lenses and customised lenses (designed to correct 3rd-order coma aberrations). In the rigid gas-permeable lens-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured without lenses, with the patient's habitual lenses and with the study lenses (Hartmann-Shack aberrometry). In the spectacle-wearing patients, ocular aberrations were measured both with and without the study lenses. LogMAR visual acuity (high-contrast and low-contrast) was evaluated with the patient wearing their habitual correction (of either spectacles or rigid gas-permeable contact lenses) and with the study lenses. Results: In the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and customised lenses provided significant reductions in 3rd-order coma root-mean-square (RMS) error, 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS error (p ≤ 0.004). In the spectacle wearers, the standard toric lenses and customised lenses significantly reduced 3rd-order RMS and higher-order RMS errors (p ≤ 0.005). The spectacle wearers showed no significant differences in visual performance measured between their habitual spectacles and the study lenses. However, in the contact lens wearers, the habitual rigid gas-permeable lenses and standard toric lenses provided significantly better high-contrast acuities compared to the customised lenses (p ≤ 0.006). Conclusions: The customised lenses provided substantial reductions in ocular aberrations in these keratoconic patients; however, the poor visual performances achieved with these lenses are most likely to be due to small, on-eye lens decentrations. © 2014 The College of Optometrists.

Visual performance and optical quality with soft lenses in keratoconus patients

Purpose: To assess visual performance and ocular aberrations in keratoconic patients using toric soft contact lenses (SCL), rigid-gas-permeable (RGP) contact lenses and spectacle lens correction. Methods: Twenty-two keratoconus patients (16 RGP lens wearers and six spectacle wearers) were fitted with toric SCL. Ocular aberrations were measured with and without the patient's habitual RGP lenses and with the SCL in place. In the spectacle wearers, aberrations were measured with and without the SCL. Visual performance (high- and low-contrast visual acuity) was evaluated with the patient's habitual correction and with the SCL. Results: In the RGP lens wearers both the habitual lenses and the toric SCL significantly reduced coma, trefoil, 3rd-order, 4th-order cylinder and higher-order root-mean-square (RMS) aberrations (p≤0.015). In the spectacle wearers the toric SCL significantly reduced coma, 3rd-order and higher-order RMS aberrations (p≤0.01). The patients' habitual RGP lenses gave better low-contrast acuity (p≤0.006) compared to the toric SCL; however, no significant difference was found between lens types for high-contrast acuity (p=0.10). In the spectacle wearers no significant differences in visual performance measurements were found between the patients' spectacles and the toric SCL (p≥0.06). Conclusion: The results show that RGP lenses provided superior visual performances and greater reduction of 3rd-order aberrations compared to toric SCL in this group of keratoconic patients. In the spectacle-wearing group, visual performance with the toric SCL was found to be comparable to that measured with spectacles. Nevertheless, with the exception of spherical aberration, the toric SCL were successful in significantly reducing uncorrected higher-order aberrations. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2012 The College of Optometrists.

Do educators need educating?

Actual text: I was recently at the Spanish College of Optometry biennial conference and attended a meeting of contact lens lecturers from around Spain and Portugal. We discussed various ideas, mainly about how to share good practice and improve standards. What came to my mind was ‘is there a blueprint for training trainers?’ Well probably not but there are many things that we need to acknowledge such as the way students learn for example. Many educators themselves were taught by lecturers who would write on a blackboard or use acetate on an overhead projector, then came the 35 mm slide era followed by the Powerpoint era. More recently there is a move towards a much more integrated approach of various teaching methods. At my university our contact lens and anterior eye lectures generally follow a format where a narrated Powerpoint lecture is uploaded onto our internal virtual learning environment. This narrated version of the slides is designed to give the didactic element of the topic. The students listen to that before attending an interactive seminar on that topic. The seminar is also recorded so that students can listen to that afterwards. The seminar is designed to give additional information, such as case reports, or to clarify key points or for live demonstrations. It is a good way of doubling the contact time with the students without imposing further on an already packed formal timetable as the students can work in their own time. One problem that we noticed with this approach was that attendance can vary. If the students feel that they will gain something from the interactive seminar then they are more likely to attend – exam tips usually win them over! At the Spanish meeting the educators decided that they wanted to have regular meetings. The industry colleagues in attendance said that they were happy to help but could not necessarily give money, but they could offer meeting rooms, pay for lunch and evening meals. They even said that that they were happy to host meetings and invite other companies too (except to manufacturing plants). In the UK the British Committee of Contact Lens Educators (BUCCLE) meets for one day on three occasions in the year. The American Optometric Contact Lens Educators (AOCLE) meets annually at a three day event. Both these organisations get some help from industry. BUCCLE usually has one of its meetings at a university, one at a company training centre/manufacturing plant/national headquarters and one meeting the day before the BCLA annual conference. BUCCLE usually has its pre-BCLA meeting in conjunction with the International Association of Contact Lens Educators (IACLE). So when educators meet what would they discuss; well probably the focus should be on education rather than actual contact lens knowledge. For example sharing ideas on how to teach toric lens fitting would be better than discussing the actual topic of toric lenses itself. Most universities will have an education department with an expert who could share ideas on how to use the internet in teaching or how to structure lectures or assessments etc. In the past I have helped with similar training programmes in other countries and sharing good practice in pedagogy is always a popular topic. Anyone who is involved in education in the field of contact lenses should look at the IACLE web page and look out for the IACLE World Congress in 2015 in the days preceding the BCLA. Finally, IACLE, AOCLE and BUCCLE all exist as a result of generous educational grants from contact lens companies and anyone interested in finding out more about should refer to their respective web pages.

Evaluating techniques to improve visual performance with and assessment of premium intraocular lenses

Premium Intraocular Lenses (IOLs) such as toric IOLs, multifocal IOLs (MIOLs) and accommodating IOLs (AIOLs) can provide better refractive and visual outcomes compared to standard monofocal designs, leading to greater levels of post-operative spectacle independence. The principal theme of this thesis relates to the development of new assessment techniques that can help to improve future premium IOL design. IOLs designed to correct astigmatism form the focus of the first part of the thesis. A novel toric IOL design was devised to decrease the effect of toric rotation on patient visual acuity, but found to have neither a beneficial or detrimental impact on visual acuity retention. IOL tilt, like rotation, may curtail visual performance; however current IOL tilt measurement techniques require the use of specialist equipment not readily available in most ophthalmological clinics. Thus a new idea that applied Pythagoras’s theory to digital images of IOL optic symmetricality in order to calculate tilt was proposed, and shown to be both accurate and highly repeatable. A literature review revealed little information on the relationship between IOL tilt, decentration and rotation and so this was examined. A poor correlation between these factors was found, indicating they occur independently of each other. Next, presbyopia correcting IOLs were investigated. The light distribution of different MIOLs and an AIOL was assessed using perimetry, to establish whether this could be used to inform optimal IOL design. Anticipated differences in threshold sensitivity between IOLs were not however found, thus perimetry was concluded to be ineffective in mapping retinal projection of blur. The observed difference between subjective and objective measures of accommodation, arising from the influence of pseudoaccommodative factors, was explored next to establish how much additional objective power would be required to restore the eye’s focus with AIOLs. Blur tolerance was found to be the key contributor to the ocular depth of focus, with an approximate dioptric influence of 0.60D. Our understanding of MIOLs may be limited by the need for subjective defocus curves, which are lengthy and do not permit important additional measures to be undertaken. The use of aberrometry to provide faster objective defocus curves was examined. Although subjective and objective measures related well, the peaks of the MIOL defocus curve profile were not evident with objective prediction of acuity, indicating a need for further refinement of visual quality metrics based on ocular aberrations. The experiments detailed in the thesis evaluate methods to improve visual performance with toric IOLs. They also investigate new techniques to allow more rapid post-operative assessment of premium IOLs, which could allow greater insights to be obtained into several aspects of visual quality, in order to optimise future IOL design and ultimately enhance patient satisfaction.