Eyeworld

34 | EYEWORLD | SUMMER 2025 R EFRACTIVE by Karolinne Rocha, MD, PhD Refractive Editor In trying to offer the best quality, we're con- stantly seeking perfection both of ourselves and the tools that we use. The patient also demands this of us. Patients are becoming more informed on the technologies, said Yoshihiro Kitazawa, MD, in "The penetration of refractive proce- dures in various markets." Dr. Kitazawa, Robert Lin, MD, and Boris Malyugin, MD, PhD, along with company data, cover the topic of market penetration of SMILE, ICL, and other refractive procedures. As patients become more educated about the options for addressing their visual concerns, they come into our offices asking for specific technologies. I recently had a young surgeon present who was a candidate for a number of refractive surgery options to meet his visual demands, and he asked for the ICL given its fast recovery, minimal side effects, and the fact that it's a reversible option. As the number of options for addressing patients' refractive concerns grows and prac- titioners gain confidence in the technology, it makes sense that intraocular surgery becomes more popular. While demand for procedures may fluctuate, such as the decline in demand for LASIK in recent years, demand for refractive surgery grows with the help of innovation. In our quest for perfection, progress hap- pens one step at a time. Strive for progress in achieving perfection A s healthcare practitioners, we're constantly looking to pro- vide the highest quality of care. We research to learn more about materi- als, investigate new technol- ogies, and query for data on efficacy measures. This issue explores new treatments, techniques, and mindsets to achieve better care for our patients. Pairing our patients with the best technol- ogy to meet their unique visual needs can be a challenge in light of different options. Mark Gorovoy, MD, Yuri McKee, MD, and Gary Wortz, MD, offer some insights into identifying the best match in "Opinions on lens materials: hydro- phobic, hydrophilic, silicone, and more." In the article, our colleagues offer their in- sights into how adjustments to lens material can impact patient satisfaction and visual outcomes. Dr. McKee said, "In cases of unhappy patients who require an IOL exchange, I almost always end up changing the IOL material." In order to avoid a dissatisfied patient, carefully consider the quality of the lens material of each IOL recommendation. In "Nuances of the Light Adjustable Lens in specific patient populations," Mark Lobanoff, MD, James Loden, MD, Blake Williamson, MD, and Vance Thompson, MD, discuss their expe- rience with this procedure and what they've learned about limitations, complications, and successes. Excellent candidates for this pro- cedure are post-refractive eyes, high myopes, those in whom biometry cannot be accurately ascertained, and generally those in whom there is a higher risk of not achieving 20/20 vision after surgery. The patient must be tolerant of monovision, and practitioners should be aware of Light Delivery Device pattern centration during light treatments to avoid inducing higher order aberrations. In trying to offer the best quality, we're constantly seeking perfection both of ourselves and the tools that we use.

• Cover