Search

Purpose: To measure the in vivo longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA) from the chromatic difference of focus (480 to 700 nm) using psychophysical methods in patients bilaterally implanted with a hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens (IOL)., Methods: Psychophysical best focus was measured in both eyes at different wavelengths (480 to 700 nm) and at three different viewing distances (0.00, +1.75, and +3.50 diopters [D]) using a custom-developed polychromatic adaptive optics set-up provided with a supercontinuum laser, a Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor, a deformable mirror, a motorized Badal system, a pupil monitoring system, and a psychophysical channel with monochromatically illuminated stimuli. Measurements were performed on 10 patients (20 eyes) bilaterally implanted with hydrophobic trifocal diffractive IOLs (FineVisionHP POD F GF; PhysIOL). LCA was computed from the chromatic difference of focus curves as the difference between 480 and 700 nm at near, intermediate, and far., Results: The LCA from psychophysical measurements was significantly higher for far vision (0.99 ± 0.06 diopters [D]), than for intermediate (0.67 ± 0.10 D) and near (0.23 ± 0.08 D) vision (one-way analysis of variance, P < .05)., Conclusions: LCA for far vision was significantly higher than for intermediate and near vision in hydrophobic trifocal diffractive IOLs, in agreement with a previous study with the same optical design but hydrophilic material IOLs. The LCA for the hydro-phobic IOL is slightly higher than for the hydrophilic IOL at far. Different combinations of refractive and diffractive LCA will allow optimizing IOL designs to improve polychromatic image quality. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(12):804-810.]., (Copyright 2020, SLACK Incorporated.)

Purpose: To assess the biomechanical stability of three different marketed intraocular lenses (IOLs) with different haptic designs (four-loop IOL [Micro F FineVision model] and double C-loop IOL [POD F and POD FT models], all manufactured by PhysIOL), in silico (computer simulation) and in vivo (in the context of lens surgery)., Methods: An in silico simulation investigation was performed using finite element modeling (FEM) software to reproduce the compression test defined by the International Organization for Standardization and in vivo implantation in patients in the context of lens surgery was evaluated 1 day and 3 months postoperatively. IOL decentration and rotation were tested. In addition, the stress and strains were analyzed with the finite element method., Results: In the in silico evaluation, the compression force for the POD F IOL was slightly lower than for the POD FT IOL and Micro F IOL for all compression diameters. The axial displacement was maximum for the POD FT IOL and the tilt, rotation, and lateral decentration were substantially lower than the acceptable tolerance limits established in ISO 11979-2. In the in vivo evaluation, a total of 45 eyes from 45 patients were selected, 15 eyes for each IOL model under assessment. Statistically significant differences were found between the Micro F and POD F IOLs for lateral decentration in x-direction (in absolute value) at 3 months postoperatively (P = .03)., Conclusions: Although statistically significant differences have been found when comparing the displacement, tilt, and rotation between the different lenses, these differences cannot be considered clinically relevant, which would suggest that all three IOL models yield excellent stability in those terms. FEM appears to be a powerful tool for numerical studies of the biomechanical properties of IOLs. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(9):617-624.]., (Copyright 2020, SLACK Incorporated.)

Purpose: To test the performance of a new monofocal intraocular lens, intended to extend depth of focus (Tecnis Eyhance, ICB00; Johnson & Johnson Vision, Inc) (ICB-IOL), in comparison to a standard monofocal IOL (Tecnis 1-piece, ZCB00; Johnson & Johnson Vision, Inc) (ZCB-IOL) of the same platform and material., Methods: Assessment of the optical performance of the two IOLs was made in vitro using an optical test bench with a model eye. The spherical aberration, modulation transfer function (MTF), and area under the MTF (MTFa) were obtained for pupil sizes ranging from 2 to 5 mm. Through-focus MTFa curves between -3.00 and +1.00 diopters (D) were obtained with three pupil sizes (2, 3, and 4.5 mm). Halo formation was also assessed for both lenses., Results: The ICB-IOL had slightly worse optical quality at its best focus (ie, lower MTF scores at distance vision) and more negative spherical aberration than the ZCB-IOL for pupils ranging from 2 to 3 mm. The maximum of the through-focus MTFa curve of the ICB-IOL with a 2-mm pupil shifted to a myopic defocus of -0.50 D. For larger pupils (≥ 3.5 mm), there were no differences in spherical aberration, MTF scores, and halo energy between the two lenses., Conclusions: The new ICB-IOL is a modified monofocal lens with 0.50 D of additional power in its central 2-mm zone and more negative spherical aberration values, which induce a myopic shift of the maximum of optical quality and could improve intermediate vision. For pupils larger than 3.5 mm, there were no differences between IOLs. The new ICB-IOL design would produce photic phenomena comparable to a standard IOL. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(9):625-632.]., (Copyright 2020, SLACK Incorporated.)

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) as a function of the astigmatism level and type., Methods: A total of 102 right eyes were included in this study. Refractive astigmatism and corneal astigmatism measured with Scheimpflug technology were retrieved from the preoperative visit and the 3-month follow-up visit. Patients were split into three groups according to the preoperative refractive astigmatism (0.50, 0.75 to 1.25, and 1.50 diopters [D] or greater) and the effectiveness among each group was evaluated according to the with-the-rule (WTR), against-the-rule (ATR), and oblique classifications. The standard Alpins method was used for the analysis., Results: Resultant astigmatism was not associated with its preoperative classification when the total sample was considered, but a significant association emerged between the presence of resultant astigmatism and its preoperative classification in the 1.50 D or greater group. The magnitude of error was significantly lower in the WTR (median: -0.30 D) than in the oblique and ATR astigmatism groups, resulting in a coefficient of adjustment of 1.13 for WTR astigmatism of 1.50 D or greater but not for the other types., Conclusions: Astigmatism correction with SMILE is predictable for astigmatism lower than 1.50 D without the need to apply a correction. However, higher undercorrection is present in WTR astigmatism of 1.50 D or greater. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(1):40-47.]., (Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.)

Purpose: To compare visual outcomes, rotational stability, and centration in a randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing cataract surgery who were bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with a similar optical zone but different haptic shape., Methods: Twenty-one patients (42 eyes) with cataract and less than 1.50 D of corneal astigmatism underwent implantation of one FineVision/MicoF IOL in one eye and one POD FineVision IOL in the contralateral eye (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) at IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. IOL allocation was random. Outcome measures, all evaluated 3 months postoperatively, included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA), and near (DCNVA) visual acuity (at 80, 40, and 25 cm) under photopic conditions, refraction, IOL centration, haptic rotation, dysphotopsia, objective quality of vision and aberration quantification, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence., Results: Three months postoperatively, mean monocular UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA (40 cm) under photopic conditions were 0.04 ± 0.07, 0.01 ± 0.04, 0.15 ± 0.11, and 0.16 ± 0.08 logMAR for the eyes implanted with the POD FineVision IOL and 0.03 ± 0.05, 0.01 ± 0.02, 0.17 ± 0.12, and 0.14 ± 0.08 logMAR for those receiving the FineVision/MicroF IOL. Moreover, the POD FineVision IOL showed similar centration (P> .05) and better rotational stability (P < .05) than the FineVision/MicroF IOL. Regarding halos, there was a minimal but statistically significant difference, obtaining better results with FineVision/MicroF. Full spectacle independence was reported by all patients., Conclusions: This study revealed similar visual outcomes for both trifocal IOLs under test (POD FineVision and FineVision/MicroF). However, the POD FineVision IOL showed better rotational stability, as afforded by its design. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(6):394-402.]., (Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.)

Purpose: To evaluate rotational stability and its influence on postoperative visual acuity of different monofocal and multifocal toric intraocular lenses (IOLs)., Methods: A prospective interventional study was designed. Ninety-one patients with a mean age of 71.65 ± 11.82 years were implanted with toric IOLs after phacoemulsification. Three monofocal toric IOLs (the Lentis LT [Oculentis, Berlin, Germany], enVista [Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY], and AcrySof IQ [Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX]) and one multifocal toric IOL (AcrySof IQ ReSTOR; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.) were implanted. Preoperative and postoperative images were taken to calculate the misalignment due to the marking method. To evaluate rotation in the different follow-up visits, another photograph was taken 1 hour and 1, 7 and 30 days postoperatively. Refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), and corrected distance visual acuity were measured 30 days postoperatively., Results: Postoperative UDVA was 0.1 logMAR or better in 64.6% of eyes implanted with monofocal IOLs and 46.4% of eyes implanted with multifocal IOLs. The enVista toric IOL showed the best UDVA compared to the other monofocal IOLs, with 81% of eyes with 0.1 logMAR or better. The mean misalignment in the total group studied was 0.07° ± 0.60°; 69.6% of monofocal IOLs and 67.9% of multifocal IOLs showed less than 5° of rotation. A correlation was found between postoperative UDVA and rotation in the monofocal and multifocal IOLs implanted (r = 0.439 [P < .011] and = 0.787 [P = .001], respectively)., Conclusions: At 1 month postoperatively, UDVA was slightly more affected by IOL rotation in multifocal than monofocal toric IOLs. The marking method was also effective., (Copyright 2015, SLACK Incorporated.)