Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the causes and possible solutions for patient dissatisfaction after the implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods: This study was a retrospective review of clinical records. All patients who were seen between January 2009 and December 2013 whose primary reason for consultation was dissatisfaction with visual performance after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation were included in the study. A single treating physician, who determined the most probable cause of dissatisfaction, decided which interventions to pursue following the initial consultation. Results: Data from 74 eyes of 49 patients were analyzed. The most common cause for complaint was blurry or foggy vision both for distance and near (68%). Complaints were most frequently attributed to residual refractive error (57%) and dry eye (35%). The most common interventions pursued were treatment of refractive error with glasses or contact lenses (46%) and treatment for dry eye (24%). Corneal laser vision correction was done in 8% of eyes; 7% required an IOL exchange. After the interventions, 45% of patients had completed resolution of symptoms, 23% of patients were partially satisfied with the results, and 32% remained completely dissatisfied with the final results. Conclusion: The most identifiable causes of dissatisfaction after presbyopia-correcting IOL implantation are residual refractive error and dry eye. Most patients can be managed with conservative treatment, though a significant number of patients remained unsatisfied despite multiple measures.

Patient satisfaction after modern day cataract surgery requires excellent surgical technique but increasingly demands superior refractive outcomes as well. In many cases, there exists an expectation from patients, as well as surgeons, to achieve emmetropia after cataract surgery. This is particularly true in patients electing premium intraocular lens technology to correct astigmatism and presbyopia to minimize spectacle dependence. Despite continued advances in preoperative and intraoperative diagnostics, refractive planning, and surgical technology, residual refractive error remains a primary source of dissatisfaction after cataract surgery. The need to enhance refractive outcomes and treat residual astigmatic or spherical refractive errors postoperatively becomes paramount to meeting the expectations of patients in their surgical outcome. This article reviews the potential preoperative and intraoperative pitfalls that can be the source of refractive error, the various options to enhance refractive outcomes, and potential future technologies to limit residual refractive error after cataract surgery.

As cataract surgery has evolved into lens-based refractive surgery, expectations for refractive outcomes continue to increase. During the past decade, advancements in technology have provided new ways to measure the cornea in preparation for cataract surgery. The increasing ability to accurately estimate corneal power allows determination of the most precise intraocular lens (IOL) for each patient. New equipment measures the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces to most accurately estimate corneal power and corneal aberrations. These measurements help surgeons make the best decisions regarding the power of the IOL to be implanted during cataract surgery. However, with all the available technology, it can be difficult to decipher which of the many technologies is necessary or best for patients and for practices. This article reviews currently available options for topography, tomography, keratometry, and biometry in preparation for cataract surgery. In addition, intraoperative aberrometry and integrated cataract suites are reviewed.

Journal of Refractive Surgery | To the Editor: Eyes with a history of refractive surgery render intraocular lens (IOL) power selection particularly difficult, but intraoperative wavefront aberrometry has shown promising results.1,2 Although it is uncommon for eyes to have significant residual corneal astigmatism after refractive surgery, such cases do exist and present an extra challenge. We

Dry eye disease (DED) is a common disease that can reduce the quality of life. Prevalence estimates vary but have been reported to be as high as 60% in some populations. Diagnosis is complicated by a multifactorial etiology and a disconnection between clinical signs and patient-reported symptomatology. Critically, preexisting DED can exacerbate postoperative dry eye symptoms and reduce patient satisfaction after ocular surgery, highlighting the value of thorough evaluation and screening for signs and symptoms of DED in preparation for ocular surgery. This article reviewed predisposing and exacerbating factors for DED and presented an argument for the importance of adequately treating DED prior to surgery, from the perspective of both the patient and the provider. It briefly reviewed currently available methodologies and emphasized the utility of multimodal diagnosis and treatment algorithms to optimize outcomes and patient satisfaction.

PURPOSE: To assess pupil diameter before and after femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) pretreatment and compare the outcomes of three laser platforms. METHODS: This prospective observational case series included consecutive patients scheduled to undergo cataract extraction using FLACS between August 2013 and February 2015. All eyes received FLACS pretreatment using three laser platforms: LenSx (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX), Catalys (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA), and Victus (Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Rochester, NY). The same protocol for preoperative medical mydriasis was used for all patients, and pupil diameter was assessed immediately before and 3 minutes after FLACS using a surgical ruler. RESULTS: A total of 198 eyes of 161 patients were included in the study. Mean pupillary miosis was 1.42 ± 1.26 mm for the LenSx, 0.66 ± 0.89 mm for the Catalys, and 0.14 ± 0.34 mm for the Victus groups. Furthermore, 8 of the 198 eyes (4.0%) demonstrated a pupil diameter of less than 5 mm after FLACS and 48 eyes (24.24%) demonstrated a pupil diameter of 6 mm or less. There was a statistically significant decrease in pupil diameter for all groups individually ( P < .05). There was also a statistically significant difference among the three groups ( P < .05), with LenSx inducing the highest degree of miosis, followed by Catalys, and finally Victus. A correlation between the pupil diameter before FLACS and degree of FLACS-induced miosis was demonstrated ( P < .05), with larger pupil diameter before FLACS associated with greater miosis. CONCLUSIONS: FLACS pretreatment seems to induce significant pupillary miosis with all laser platforms assessed in this study. The decrease in pupil diameter after FLACS reached clinical significance for cataract extraction (< 5 mm) in 4.0% of cases, whereas 20.2% of eyes demonstrated small pupil diameter (≤ 6 mm) after FLACS pretreatment. [ J Refract Surg . 2016;32(2):84–88.]