Presbyopia correction through implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) is a modality offered to both cataract and refractive-lens exchange patients. To maximize postoperative satisfaction, IOL selection needs to be made based on patients’ requirements aligned with the available technology. Five Trifocal IOLs were assessed in this study, and their differentiating features were identified: Triumf POD L GF, AT Lisa Tri, Tecnis Synergy, AcrySof IQ PanOptix, and Acriva Trinova Pro C. The optical quality was assessed using the modulation-transfer-function principle. Simulated defocus curves were derived from a non-linear formula. Far-focus simulated visual acuity (simVA) was 0.03 logMAR or better for all the studied IOLs, showing minimal differences. However, each IOL’s intermediate focus position differed across a range from 61 cm to 80 cm; and for the near focus, it was 36 cm to 44 cm. Triumf demonstrated improved intermediate point at the expense of the near focus resulting in a lower predicted near VA. PanOptix exhibited the shortest range of vision without a clear distinction between intermediate and near-point. The remaining lenses presented three foci of comparable optical quality and, thus, simVA performance. Each model, however, revealed a different aperture-change response. Trinova function improved at intermediate but was worse at near for larger pupils. The opposite was observed for AT Lisa. Synergy’s optical quality change was predominantly associated with lower pupil diameter. In conclusion, the trifocal IOLs can be differentiated according to their secondary-foci position, light-energy distribution, and pupil-size-related behavior. The observed differences may translate directly into a clinical effect showing that the trifocal IOLs vary in their ability to deliver optimal vision at different distances, with some providing improved intermediate while others favor reading distance. The knowledge gained through this objective testing can support IOL selection, postoperative patient counselling and increase the chance of spectacle independence after surgery.

This paper explored epidemiology and evaluation of posterior segment involvement as prognostic factors for functional outcome of patients with open globe injuries. A retrospective analysis of 151 patients with open globe injuries was conducted. Pre- and postoperative-corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), epidemiologic data, classification of the injuries including the ocular trauma score (OTS), performed surgeries, intraocular pressure (IOP) and correlation analyses between OTS and postoperative CDVA were obtained. A total of 147 eyes were included in the study. Mean age was 42.9 ± 22.2 years, 78.2% were male, and 36.7% of injuries occurred in the workplace. Thirty-eight patients (25.9%) had intraocular foreign bodies. Concerning injury location, 51.7% of the injuries were located in zone I (cornea, corneoscleral limbus), 15.0% in zone II (up to 5 mm posterior the sclerocorneal limbus) and 32.0% in zone III (posterior of zone 2). Affected structures were eyelids (17.7%), cornea (74.8%), iris (63.9%), lens (56.5%), sclera (48.3%), retina (47.6%) and optic nerve (19.7%). Mean preoperative CDVA was 1.304 ± 0.794 logMAR and 1.289 ± 0.729 logMAR postoperatively (p = 0.780). Patients with posterior segment involvement had significantly worse postoperative CDVA than patients without (1.523 ± 0.654 logMAR vs. 0.944 ± 0.708 logMAR, p < 0.01). Predictive factors for good visual outcome of open globe injuries are good initial CDVA and ocular trauma affecting only zone I and II.

Background: The Acute Retinal Necrosis (ARN) is an inflammatory, rapidly progressive necrotizing retinitis and vasculitis, most frequently caused by Varicella-Zoster-Virus (VZV), followed by Herpes-Simplex-Virus (HSV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr-Virus (EBV). The diagnosis is based on clinical signs that were first defined by the American Uveitis Society in 1994 that include one or more foci of retinal necrosis, rapid progression without treatment, circumferential progression, occlusive vasculopathy, and inflammatory signs of the vitreous and anterior chamber Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we included 16 eyes of 10 patients, six patients with simultaneous or delayed bilateral affection, treated for ARN. Status of disease, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA, decimal), intraocular pressure (IOP), pathogen proof, therapy, and complications were evaluated at diagnosis and 3 months later. Results: In nine patients, the pathogen was identified (six VZV, two HSV, one CMV, one EBV). All patients were treated with systemic and intravitreal virustatic agents. In nine eyes with a CDVA of 0.2 ± 0.2 at hospital admission, vitrectomy was performed, and in seven eyes with CDVA of 0.5 ± 0.3, no vitrectomy was performed (p = 0.04). After 3 months, CDVA of the vitrectomized eyes decreased to 0.1 ± 0.1 vs. 0.4 ± 0.3 (p = 0.01) without vitrectomy. CDVA of fellow eyes affected was 0.6 ± 0.2 at initial presentation vs. 0.2 ± 0.2 for eyes affected first and 0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 0.1 ± 0.1 after 3 months. We observed several complications including retinal detachment, recurrence of the disease, and bulbar hypotony. Conclusion: For fellows eyes affected, diagnosis could be confirmed earlier, leading to a more successful treatment. The success of vitrectomy is difficult to evaluate because vitrectomy is most frequently performed just in the advanced stages of the disease. Early treatment with an appropriate approach is essential to avoid loss of vision.

Extended depth-of-focus (EDoF) presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) models differ in their optical design and performance. In the laboratory, we compared the ray propagation and light intensity profiles of four IOLs: the non-diffractive AcrySof IQ Vivity (Alcon Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) and two diffractive models, Symfony ZXR00 (Johnson & Johnson Vision, Jacksonville, FL, USA) and AT Lara 829 MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Berlin, Germany). A fourth lens, the monofocal AcrySof IQ SN60WF (Alcon Inc.) acted as the control. We projected a 520 nm laser light through each submerged lens in a bath of fluorescein solution. A camera mounted on a microscope captured the light that emerged from the IOL. We recorded the IOLs’ point spread function (PSF) to determine the presence of unwanted visual effects. The ray propagation visualization and light intensity profile of the monofocal control showed one distinct focus, while the AcrySof IQ Vivity demonstrated an extended focus area. We observed two distinct foci with each diffractive IOL. We found a lower level of light spread beyond the PSF center for the AcrySof IQ Vivity compared to the diffractive IOLs. In conclusion, we could confirm the extended range of focus for all the EDoF IOL models. However, the non-diffractive AcrySof IQ Vivity appears to have a smoother transition from a far to an intermediate range. We discuss whether, in clinical use, the higher level of spurious light we found in the diffractive designs may translate into increased dysphotopsia.

Purpose: To analyze the tomographically non-affected second eyes of keratoconus patients using the Corvis ST to detect any biomechanical abnormalities or subclinical keratoconus. Methods: In this retrospective, single-center, consecutive case series 244 eyes of 122 keratoconus patients were analyzed between November 2020 and February 2021. Fourteen fellow eyes fulfilled the inclusion criteria and showed no clinical or tomographic signs of keratoconus. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity, tomographic and biomechanical analyses using Scheimpflug imaging: Pentacam and Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Tomographic analyses included anterior and posterior simulated keratometry, K-Max, central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, Belin/Ambrosio Ectasia Display, and the ABCD grading system. For biomechanical analyses, the corneal biomechanical index (CBI) and tomographic biomechanical index were used. Results: The mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.01 ± 0.10 logMAR. Mean K-Max was 43.79 ± 1.12 D, mean central corneal thickness 529 ± 25 µm, mean thinnest corneal thickness 524 ± 23 µm, and mean Belin/Ambrosio Ectasia Display 1.0 ± 0.32. The mean CBI was 0.30 ± 0.21. Regular CBI values were found in six of 14 patients. The mean tomographic biomechanical index was 0.47 ± 0.22 with regular values observed in only two of 14 patients. No signs of tomographic or biomechanical abnormalities were shown in only one of 14 keratoconus fellow eyes, with regular ABCD, Belin/Ambrosio Ectasia Display, CBI and tomographic biomechanical index values. Conclusions: Tomographically normal fellow eyes of keratoconus patients are rare. In these cases, a biomechanical analysis of the cornea may help detect a subclinical keratoconus. The tomographic biomechanical index was the most sensitive index to verify a mild ectasia.