Background and Objective: Limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) is characterized by the insufficiency of limbal stem cells to maintain the corneal epithelium. Severe cases of LSCD may be treated with limbal transplantation from healthy autologous or allogeneic limbal tissue. Multiple cell-based therapies have been studied as alternative treatments to improve success rates and minimize immunosuppressive regimens after allogeneic transplants. In this review, we describe the success rates, and complications of different cell-based therapies for LSCD. We also discuss each therapy’s relative strengths and weaknesses, their history in animal and human studies, and their effectiveness compared to traditional transplants.Methods: PubMed was searched for publications using the terms LSCD, cell-based therapy, cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation (CLET), cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET),and mesenchymal stem cells from 1989 to August 2022. Inclusion criteria were English language articles.Exclusion criteria were non-English language articles.Key Content and Findings: current cell-based therapies for LSCD are CLET and non-limbal epithelial cells. Non-limbal epithelial cell methods include COMET, conjunctival epithelial autografts, and mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs). Moreover, several alternative potential sources of non-limbal cells have described, including induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), human embryonic stem cells (hESCs),human dental pulp stem cells, hair follicle bulge-derived epithelial stem cells, amniotic membrane epithelial cells, and human umbilical cord lining epithelial cells.Conclusions: Cell-based therapies are a promising treatment modality for LSCD. While CLET is currently the only approved cell-based therapy and is only approved in the European Union, more novel methods have also been shown to be effective in human or animal studies thus far. Non-limbal epithelial cells such as COMET are also an alternative treatment to allogeneic transplants especially as a surface stabilizing procedure. iPSCs are currently being studied in early phase trials and have the potential to revolutionize the way LSCD is treated. Lastly, cell-based therapies for restoring the limbal niche such as mesenchymal stem cells have also shown promising results in the first human proof-of-concept study. Several potential sources of non-limbal cells are under investigation.
Contrast is the differential luminance between one object and another. Contrast sensitivity (CS) quantifies the ability to detect this difference: estimating contrast threshold provides information about the quality of vision and helps diagnose and monitor eye diseases. High contrast visual acuity assessment is traditionally performed in the eye care practice, whereas the estimate of the discrimination of low contrast targets, an important complementary task for the perception of details, is far less employed. An example is driving when the contrast between vehicles, obstacles, pedestrians, and the background is reduced by fog. Many conditions can selectively degrade CS, while visual acuity remains intact. In addition to spatial CS, “temporal” CS is defined as the ability to discriminate luminance differences in the temporal domain, i.e., to discriminate information that reaches the visual cortex as a function of time. Likewise, temporal sensitivity of the visual system can be investigated in terms of critical fusion frequency (CFF), an indicator of the integrity of the magnocellular system that is responsible for the perception of transient stimulations. As a matter of fact, temporal resolution can be abnormal in neuro-ophthalmological clinical conditions. This paper aims at considering CS and its application to the clinical practice.
Background: Femtosecond laser astigmatic keratotomy (FSAK) and toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have been studied individually for comparison to treat astigmatism at cataract surgery. We report a case of surgically induced high corneal astigmatism by laser thermal keratoplasty (LTK) in a patient with cataract who was successfully treated with simultaneous combination of FSAK and toric IOL implantation with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS). This is the first report of both procedures combined simultaneously, with or without history of LTK.
Case Description: A 68-year-old male presented with a history of LTK with two enhancements each eye in 2004, with subsequent surgically induced high corneal astigmatism, and with age-related nuclear cataract of both eyes. IOL master demonstrated +7.71 diopters of astigmatism at 163 degree right eye and +3.29 diopters of astigmatism at 4 degree left eye. After extensive discussion of the risks and benefits, the patient agreed to undergo FLACS with FSAK with two 61 degrees of relaxation incisions (RIs) and toric IOL (Alcon SN6AT9) right eye; FLACS with toric IOL (Alcon SN6AT7) alone left eye. At 2-year follow-up, uncorrected visual acuity was 20/30 right eye, 20/25 left eye. His best corrected visual acuity was 20/25 (+0.25 +1.00 axis 21) right eye and 20/20 (plano +0.25 axis 90) left eye; his best corrected near visual acuity was J1+ with add +2.50 diopters right eye and left eye.
Conclusions: Patients with age-related cataract and LTK induced high corneal astigmatism can hardly be sufficiently treated with FSAK or toric IOL alone at the time of cataract surgery. An effective way is to combine large FSAK and toric IOL of the highest cylindrical power of T9, in our case, simultaneously, which can achieve an excellent long term visual outcome.
Background: To compare objective electrophysiological contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in patients implanted with either multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) or monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) by pattern reversal visual evoked potentials (prVEP) measurements.
Methods: Fourty-five cataract patients were randomly allocated to receive bilaterally: apodized diffractive-refractive Alcon Acrysof MIOL (A), full diffractive AMO Tecnis MIOL (B) or monofocal Alcon Acrysof IOL (C). Primary outcomes: 1-year differences in objective binocular CSF measured by prVEP with sinusoid grating stimuli of 6 decreasing contrast levels at 6 spatial frequencies. Secondary outcomes: psychophysical CSF measured with VCTS-6500, photopic uncorrected distance (UDVA), and mesopic and photopic uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuities (UNVA and UIVA respectively).
Results: Electrophysiological CSF curve had an inverted U-shaped morphology in all groups, with a biphasic pattern in Group B. Group A showed a lower CSF than group B at 4 and 8 cpd, and a lower value than group C at 8 cpd. Psychophysical CSF in group A exhibited a lower value at 12 cpd than group B. Mean photopic and mesopic UNVA and UIVA were worse in monofocal group compared to the multifocal groups. Mesopic UNVA and UIVA were better in group B.
Conclusions: Electrophysiological CSF behaves differently depending on the types of multifocal or monofocal IOLs. This may be related to the visual acuity under certain conditions or to IOL characteristics. This objective method might be a potential new tool to investigate on MIOL differences and on subjective device-related quality of vision.
Abstract: Contrast is the differential luminance between one object and another. Contrast sensitivity (CS) quantifies the ability to detect this difference: estimating contrast threshold provides information about the quality of vision and helps diagnose and monitor eye diseases. High contrast visual acuity assessment is traditionally performed in the eye care practice, whereas the estimate of the discrimination of low contrast targets, an important complementary task for the perception of details, is far less employed. An example is driving when the contrast between vehicles, obstacles, pedestrians, and the background is reduced by fog. Many conditions can selectively degrade CS, while visual acuity remains intact. In addition to spatial CS, “temporal” CS is defined as the ability to discriminate luminance differences in the temporal domain, i.e., to discriminate information that reaches the visual cortex as a function of time. Likewise, temporal sensitivity of the visual system can be investigated in terms of critical fusion frequency (CFF), an indicator of the integrity of the magnocellular system that is responsible for the perception of transient stimulations. As a matter of fact, temporal resolution can be abnormal in neuro-ophthalmological clinical conditions. This paper aims at considering CS and its application to the clinical practice.
Abstract: Advances in intraocular lens (IOL) design have rendered cataract surgery a refractive procedure. Newer IOL types include bifocal, trifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs. Their basic difference nestles in the number of focal points that each lens provides, which in turn leads to different visual outcomes. Familiarity of surgeons with the various characteristics of each lens is of utmost importance for accurate IOL selection to match each patient’s needs. In this review, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes after implantation of multifocal and EDOF IOLs in terms of distance, intermediate and near vision, contrast sensitivity, and reading performance. Finally, we discuss the defocus curve and the optical and photic phenomena associated with each type of IOL.