Background: With the arrival of a new standardized tool and considering the multiple disadvantages of the actual method used for assesses lighting needs, the goal of the study was to compare the actual lighting assessment method used by the clinicians working in a rehabilitation center with the use of the LuxIQTM. As reading is found to be the main difficulty mentioned by the majority of the clients at the rehabilitation centre and that past studies have shown the impact of lighting on improving reading speed and deceasing print size, the hypothesis stated that the use of the standardized tool would be statistically significantly superior than the use of the standard method on the variables on reading speed, print size, ocular fatigue, application of the recommendations and satisfaction of the length of time read.

Methods: Three clinicians proceeded to home lighting assessments for 28 participants aged from 19 to 100 years (mean =75, SD =27) old diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration or glaucoma. The study evaluated and compared pre and post results between the two methods.

Results: The intervention did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the variables mentioned. The lighting assessment itself, with either the standard method or using the LuxIQ, statistically significantly decreased print size for reading (P<0.001, ω² =0.47).

Conclusions: Lighting has a significant impact on reading print size. Participants value the assessment but encounter various obstacles that prevent them from applying the lighting recommendations. Considering the positive impact of lighting, finding a solution so participants may profit from the benefits of this intervention is crucial.

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.