Purpose: To evaluate vision-related quality of life in two sets of patients after routine cataract surgery implanting with traditional versus multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs). Methods: In a cross-sectional prospective study, 58 and 33 candidates for cataract surgery were divided into traditional (Acrysof SN60WF, Alcon Laboratories, Inc) and multifocal IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL TFNT00, Alcon Laboratories, Inc. ) groups, respectively. The primary outcome was VFQ-25 scores. The secondary outcomes were making comparisons between the two IOL types in the near vision and the driving items. Results: The mean patients’,age in traditional and multifocal IOL groups was 60. 85 ±,7. 40 (55% female) and 59. 85 ±,8. 95 (36% female) years, respectively. The mean VFQ-25 total scores in traditional and multifocal IOL groups before and after surgery were 63. 69 ±,4. 95 and 72. 15 ±,9. 66, and 98. 08 ±,0. 70 and 95. 70 ±,1. 30, respectively (P = 0. 001 & 0. 001). The mean scores of night driving in traditional and multifocal IOL groups were 38. 79 ±,20. 50 and 44. 35 ±,21. 12 (P = 0. 1) before surgery which improved to 97. 41 ±,7. 68 and 56. 45 ±,11. 12 after surgery, respectively (P = 0. 001). The mean scores of near vision in traditional and multifocal IOL groups were 46. 83 ±,10. 56 and 50. 53 ±,8. 58 (P = 0. 2) before surgery which improved to 89. 94 ±,4. 87 and 100. 00 ±,0. 00 after surgery, respectively (P = 0. 001). Conclusion: Vision-related quality of life after cataract surgery with either type of traditional or multifocal (PanOptix) IOLs improved to an excellent level. Traditional IOLs provided more satisfaction in nighttime driving while multifocal IOLs provided increased satisfaction in near and intermediate vision.

Purpose: To compare distant and near visual function after cataract surgery with implantation of Crystalens HD or Tek-Clear as accommodating intraocular LENSES (IOLs), versus SA60AT as a standard IOL.Methods: The study included 62 eyes of 58 patients divided into three groups using three different IOLs: Crystalens HD (Bausch and Lomb, NY, USA), Tek-Clear (Tekia, CA, USA) and SA60AT (Alcon, TX, USA) were implanted in 23, 14 and 25 eyes, respectively. Corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected and distance corrected near visual acuities (UCNVA and DCNVA), near point of accommodation (NPA), spectacle freedom and patient satisfaction were assessed six months postoperatively and compared between the three groups.Results: After 6 months, all patients showed significant improvement in CDVA with no significant difference among the study groups. However, UCNVA and DCNVA were significantly better in patients implanted with accommodating IOLs. NPA was closest in the Crystalens HD group, followed by Tek-Clear and MONOFOCAL SA60AT (P<0.001). Patients with accommodating IOLs were more likely to become spectacle free and satisfied with their near vision as compared to subjects receiving a MONOFOCAL IOL.Conclusions: Accommodating IOLs (Crystalens HD and Tek-Clear) effectively reduce the necessity for spectacles after cataract surgery.

Purpose: To compare visual quality in patients receiving Alcon AcrySof ReSTOR multifocal versus AcrySof SA60AT MONOFOCAL intraocular LENSES (IOL).Methods: In this interventional study, patients with senile cataract undergoing surgery were enrolled. The age of the patients ranged between 40 and 85 years, and their potential preoperative vision was 20/30 or better. In all patients phacoemulsification was performed through a temporal 2.8 mm incision. Postoperative visual acuity (VA), refraction, and contrast sensitivity (with and without glare) tests were done at 1 and 3 months. A total of 101 eyes were evaluated. A multifocal IOL was implanted in 52.5% of cases, and in the rest, a MONOFOCAL IOL was used.Results: At 3 months, the mean distant VA without and with correction was 0.11 and 0.04 logMAR, respectively, in the multifocal IOL group, and 0.14 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively, in the MONOFOCAL IOL group (P>0.10). The near VA without and with correction was 0.14 and 0.05 logMAR, respectively, in the multifocal group and 0.22 and 0.04 logMAR, respectively, in the MONOFOCAL IOL group, statistically significantly better in the multifocal group (P=0.038). At 3 months after surgery, contrast sensitivity with and without glare showed statistically significant inter-group differences at 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (CPD), and at 6 and 12 CPD, respectively. These figures were higher in MONOFOCAL group.Conclusion: Use of multifocal IOLs in cataract surgery can restore near vision to some extent in addition to distant vision. Contrast sensitivity in recipients of multifocal IOLs is lower than those with MONOFOCAL IOLs.

Purpose: To compare the visual performance of two distinct types of soft contact LENSES (CL) aimed at slowing down myopia progression with the performance of a MONOFOCAL soft CL. Methods: In a prospective double-masked, crossover trial, 18 myopic adults (aged 18–30 years old) were fitted in a randomized order with three types of disposable CL: MiSightTM (dual-focus), MyloTM (extended depth of focus-EDOF-), and ClaritiTM (single distance vision). Measurements were taken after wearing the CL for five days with five days off in between at two different optometry centers. High contrast distance visual acuity (VA) with spectacles and for each of the different CL, subjective refraction, slit lamp exam, aberrometry, stereopsis, monocular and binocular amplitude of accommodation and accommodative facility, and horizontal phorias were measured. Results: The high contrast distance VA was better for the single vision CL compared to the myopia control CL. No significant differences were observed between the r two myopia control CL. The overall root mean square (RMS) was higher for the double focus CL (RMS = 1. 18 ± 0. 29 μm), followed by the EDOF CL (RMS = 0. 76 ± 0. 35 μm) and then the single vision CL (RMS = 0. 50 ± 0. 19 μm). The primary spherical aberration (SA) mean value was low for all of the three CL, without statistical differences among them. No other significant differences were detected. Conclusion: The overall RMS resulted in a higher value for the dual-focus than the EDOF CL, but no differences in high contrast distance VA and binocularity were detected between them. The MONOFOCAL CL’s performance was better than the myopia control CL.

Myopia has become a pandemic disease in the past few years and its sight-threatening consequences associated with high myopia have been a challenging issue for most public health societies. Controlling myopia progression has also become a global concern for many people particularly, parents of myopic children. Accordingly, a large body of work has been devoted to considering different optical and non-optical methods to prevent or retard myopia progression. Different optical strategies such as sunder correction, MONOFOCAL spectacles or contact LENSES, bifocal or progressive spectacle LENSES, multifocal contact LENSES, gas-permeable (GP) contact LENSES, and orthokeratology (ortho-K) have been proposed to slow down the myopia progression. Although the effectiveness of these treatment strategies has been vastly studied, there are some debates concerning the most efficient method in controlling myopia progression. The present study reviewed the current optical therapies to control the progression of myopia. A literature review revealed that optical strategies, such as myopic under correction, MONOFOCAL spectacles or contact LENSES, GP contact LENSES, and bifocal and multifocal spectacle LENSES did not provide a clinically significant reduction in myopia progression. In contrast, ortho-K and newly introduced multifocal soft contact LENSES may significantly slow myopia progression.