Current Ophthalmology Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 237–240 | Cite as

Advanced Technology IOL Cataract Surgery Optimized for Pre-existing Corneal Disease

  • Sina Vahedi
  • John D. SheppardEmail author
Cataract (CE Starr and A Brissette, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cataract


Purpose of Review

Discuss the management of ocular surface disease for favorable outcomes with advanced technology IOLs.

Recent Findings

Ocular surface disease poses a challenge for favorable outcomes with advanced technology IOLs, especially given current patient expectations that glasses-free outcomes are guaranteed. Long-established and recent techniques for optimizing the ocular surface prior to cataract surgery, combined with education and careful selection of IOLs can help meet patient expectations.


Careful measurement, planning, and treatment of ocular surface disorders can enable more patients to benefit from advanced technology IOLs.


Advanced technology IOL Presbyopia correcting Cataract Corneal disease Corneal aberration Ocular surface Dry eye 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

John D. Sheppard reports personal fees and other from Alcon/Novartis, personal fees and other from Allergan, personal fees and other from Bausch + Lomb, personal fees and other from KALA Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Omeros, and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson/TearScience, outside the submitted work. Sina Vahedi declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    • Patino CM, McKean-Cowdin R, Azen SP, Allison JC, Choudhury F, Varma R, et al. Central and peripheral visual impairment and the risk of falls and falls with injury. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(2):199–206.e1 Patients with presbyopia-correcting IOLs may benefit from both cosmetic and functional improvements with increased safety compared to bifocals, which create peripheral visual distortion, thereby increasing the risk of falls. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sangwan VS, Gupta S, Das S. Cataract surgery in ocular surface diseases: clinical challenges and outcomes. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2018;29(1):81–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim P, Plugfelder S, Slomovic AR. Top 5 pearls to consider when implanting advanced-technology IOLs in patients with ocular surface disease. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2012;52(2):51–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia-Zalisnak D, Nash D, Yeu E. Ocular surface diseases and corneal refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25(4):264–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Gibbons A, Ali TK, Waren DP, Donaldson KE. Causes and correction of dissatisfaction after implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2016;10:1965 Clinical retrospective analysis of 74 eyes in 49 patients documents that residual refractive error and dry eye, both a reflection of irregular astigmatism and biometric inaccuracies, are the main sources of patient dissatisfaction with multifocal IOL surgery. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V, Ziaei M, Leyland M. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;12:CD003169.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aristeidou A, Taniguchi EV, Tsatsos M, Muller R, McAlinden C, Pineda R, et al. The evolution of corneal and refractive surgery with the femtosecond laser. Eye Vis (Lond). 2015;2:12. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epitropoulos AT. Visual and refractive outcomes of a toric presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gokce SE, Gumus K, Garibay A, Al-Mohtaseb ZN. Cataract surgery in the setting of corneal pathology. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2016;56(3):1–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Hity A, Ramaesh K, Lockington D. EDTA chelation for symptomatic band keratopathy: results and recurrence. Eye. 2018;32(1):26–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwon YS, Song YS, Kim JC. New treatment for band keratopathy: superficial lamellar keratectomy, EDTA chelation and amniotic membrane transplantation. J Korean Med Sci. 2004;19(4):611–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sheppard JD, Mansur A, Comstock TL, Hovanesian JA. An update on the surgical management of pterygium and the role of loteprednol etabonate ointment. Clin ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ). 2014;8:1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friend J, Thoft RA. Functional competence of regenerating ocular surface epithelium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1978;17(2):134–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    John T, Tighe S, Sheha H, Hamrah P, Salem ZM, Cheng A, et al. Corneal nerve regeneration after self-retained cryopreserved amniotic membrane in dry eye disease. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakamura T, Kataoka T, Kojima T, Yoshida Y, Sugiyama Y. Refractive outcomes after phototherapeutic refractive keratectomy for granular corneal dystrophy. Cornea. 2018;37(5):548–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rathi VM, Vyas SP, Sangwan VS. Phototherapeutic keratectomy. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012;60(1):5–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyEastern Virginia Medical SchoolNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Virginia Eye ConsultantsNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations