Background: New intraocular lenses (IOLs) have emerged since the originally coined monofocal and multifocal IOLs. The extended depth of focus (EDoF) and enhanced monofocal IOLs (mono-EDoF) that have appeared in the last decade have caused some confusion in their classification. The aim of this review was to summarize the outcomes provided by mono-EDOF IOLs and to determine which of the endpoints, described by the American National Standard (ANSI) for EDoF IOLs, are fulfilled. Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and data extraction. The search strategy was limited to studies published between 2020 and 2022, but not by language. The results are presented as a narrative summary accompanied by tables, in alignment with the objectives of this scoping review. Compliance with the endpoints for clinical outcomes described in the American National Standard Z80.35–2018 (ANSI) for EDoF lenses was checked and additional endpoints were defined. Results: Two systematic reviews, 13 laboratory, 21 clinical, and two mixed studies were included. Tecnis Eyhance was the mono-EDOF with the highest volume of evidence to date. Although laboratory studies included other IOLs, clinical evidence for them is still scarce, with only one study of IsoPure compared to a standard monofocal IOL. Evidence in comparison to EDoF lenses is also scarce, even for Tecnis Eyhance, with only three studies including this lens in comparison to an EDoF lens. After evaluation of the ANSI criteria, agreement was found in the failure for the increase in depth of field equal to or greater than 0.5 D for a visual acuity (VA) level of 0.2 logMAR and none of the studies supported that the median monocular VA at intermediate distance was at least 0.2 logMAR. Conclusions: Additional clinical evidence is required for other mono-EDOF IOLs beyond Tecnis Eyhance. Until the arrival of a standard classification, mono-EDOF should be better still classified as monofocal because the ANSI standards were not fully met.

To introduce a new application (ClinicCSF) to measure Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) with tablet devices, and to compare it against the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT). A total of 42 subjects were arranged in two groups of 21 individuals. Different versions of the ClinicCSF (.v1 and .v2) were used to measure the CSF of each group with the same iPad and the results were compared with those measured with the FACT. The agreements between ClinicCSF and FACT for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were represented by Bland-Altman plots. Statistically significant differences in CSF of both groups were found due to the change of the ClinicCSF version (p<0.05) while no differences were manifested with the use of the same FACT test. The best agreement with the FACT was found with the ClinicCSF.v2 with no significant differences in all the evaluated spatial frequencies. However, the 95% confidence intervals for mean differences between ClinicCSF and FACT were lower for the version which incorporated a staircase psychophysical method (ClinicCSF.v1), mainly for spatial frequencies of 6, 12 and 18 cpd. The new ClinicCSF application for iPad retina showed no significant differences with FACT test when the same contrast sensitivity steps were used. In addition, it is shown that the accurateness of a vision screening could be improved with the use of an appropriate psychophysical method.

Dysfunctional lens syndrome (DLS) is a term coined to describe the natural aging changes in the crystalline lens. Different alterations in the refractive properties and transparency of the lens are produced during the development of presbyopia and cataract, such as changes in internal high order aberrations or an increase in ocular forward scattering, with a potentially significant impact on clinical measures, including visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Objective technologies have emerged to solve the limits of current methods for the grading of the lens aging, which have been linked to the DLS term. However, there is still not a gold standard or evidence-based clinical guidelines around these new technologies despite multiple research studies have correlated their results with conventional methods such as visual acuity or the lens opacification system (LOCS), with more scientific background around the ocular scattering index (OSI) and Scheimpflug densitometry. In either case, DLS is not a new evidence-based concept that leads to new knowledge about crystalline lens aging but it is a nomenclature change of two existing terms, presbyopia and cataracts. Therefore, this term should be used with caution in the scientific peer-reviewed literature.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the prediction of visual performance based on the modulation transfer function area (MTFa) calculated with optical simulations is better correlated with visual acuity or contrast sensitivity obtained from defocus curves in patients implanted with a trifocal intraocular lens. METHODS: Biometric eye data from 43 patients were used to create a mean eye model. A trifocal intraocular lens with a power obtained from the mean of the eyes implanted was incorporated into the model and the MTFa was calculated at the 11 defocus planes corresponding the 11 defocus locations measured in clinical practice. Simulations were conducted for pupil diameters of 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 mm. The MTFa correlation with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity was evaluated with the mean obtained after stratification of the clinical sample in four groups according to the previous pupil diameters. RESULTS: A linear model predicted the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity from MTFa with similar accuracy to nonlinear models, with R ² approximately 0.50 for visual acuity and approximately 0.42 for contrast sensitivity. A change of −0.01 logMAR and −0.02 logC was produced per unit of MTFa for visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, respectively. The mean difference between the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity obtained from the model and that measured in clinical practice was close to zero, but the bias varied depending on the defocus lens used, with higher deviation at −0.50 and −3.00 diopters of defocus. CONCLUSIONS: The MTFa obtained from optical simulations can be used to predict the mean visual acuity and contrast sensitivity consistently, with contrast sensitivity being more sensitive but with higher bias. [ J Refract Surg. 2019;35(12):789–795.]

To evaluate parameters and dynamic corneal densitometry with a new dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer (Corvis ST) in eyes having small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Qvision, Vithas Virgen del Mar Hospital, Almería, Spain. Retrospective case series. The study comprised eyes from the same institution having small-incision lenticule extraction surgery. Preoperative and 1-month postoperative measurements were taken. Forty-three eyes were evaluated. The mean difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) and biomechanically corrected IOP before and after surgery was 2.24 mm Hg ± 1.26 mm (SD) (P = .001) and 0.57 ± 1.77 mm Hg (P = .04), respectively. All dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer parameters changed significantly after surgery (P < .05). The variation in each parameter was correlated with the removed corneal thickness (P < .05), except the stiffness parameter at the first applanation (P = .15). None of the 4 dynamic corneal densitometry parameters changed significantly as a result of surgery (P ≥ .29). A new sign, described as an inclined brightness fringe moving through the corneal periphery, appeared preoperatively in eyes with higher dynamic corneal densitometry. This sign was more prevalent postoperatively (48.8% versus 72.1%) (P = .04). The biomechanically corrected IOP measured after surgery with the dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer showed better agreement with the preoperative values than IOP. The stiffness parameter was not dependent on the amount of removed corneal thickness. A new sign correlated with dynamic corneal densitometry was found and might be related to changes in corneal hydration and biomechanics.

Purpose/Aim: To evaluate the impact of ocular parameters on the visual performance achieved with the multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) Bi-Flex M 677MY. Materials and Methods: About 26 subjects were included in the current study. Several physiological variables were retrieved from the 3-month follow-up visit, including pupil diameter and distance from pupil center to the vertex normal of the anterior cornea (µ). These variables were also obtained in the preoperative visit. Binocular and monocular visual acuity defocus curves were measured at 1 and 3 months after surgery, respectively. The monocular Area Under the Curve (AUC) was computed along the total range (Total Area Under the Curve (TAUC), +1.00 to −4.00 D) and for the ranges of Far (Far Area Under the Curve (FAUC), +0.50 to −0.50 D), (Intermediate Area Under the Curve (IAUC), −1.00 to −1.50 D) and Near vision (Near Area Under the Curve (NAUC), −2.00 to −4.00 D). Correlations between these areas and the postoperative physiological variables were assessed. Results: The mean µ was reduced from 0.21 to 0.10 mm after surgery, as well as pupil diameters, either photopic (−7.4%) or mesopic (−8.1%) (p < 0.05). The mean AUCs were 2.08 ± 0.74 for TAUC, 0.57 ± 0.17 for FAUC, 0.16 ± 0.09 for IAUC, and 0.81 ± 0.29 for NAUC. Significant correlations were found between NAUC and corneal power (r = −0.39, p = 0.05) as well as between IAUC and temporal decentration of the lens from vertex normal (ρ = −0.41, p = 0.04). Conclusions: The visual performance at near distance with the IOL evaluated improved in eyes with less corneal power. On the other hand, a slight temporal IOL decentration from vertex normal also improved intermediate visual acuity. The binocular defocus curve was similar to other trifocal IOLs.