Search

Purpose: To assess the power profile and optical performance of 2 extended range-of-vision (ERV) intraocular lenses (IOLs), TECNIS Eyhance (ICB00) and LuxSmart, and compare them with their monofocal counterpart lenses with similar platforms and materials: TECNIS 1-piece (ZCB00) and LuxGood, respectively., Setting: Optics and Optometry Faculties of Complutense University (Madrid) and Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya BarcelonaTech (Terrassa) in Spain., Design: Laboratory investigation on optical bench., Methods: For each design, the power distribution and (fourth and sixth-order) spherical aberration (SA) across the lens aperture were measured as well as the optical performance using modulation transfer function-based metrics with through-focus evaluation. 3 nominal powers (+10.00 diopters [D], +20.00 D, and +30.00 D) and 3 pupil sizes (2.0 mm, 3.0 mm, and 4.5 mm) were considered to assess whether the base power of the lens and pupillary dynamics have an influence on the depth-of-focus extension., Results: TECNIS Eyhance and LuxSmart IOLs had different power and SA profiles, but both designs shared a positive add power in their central region in comparison with their monofocal counterparts. LuxSmart had a greater add power while TECNIS Eyhance showed higher peak optical quality but smaller depth of focus., Conclusions: Differences of focus extension between the 2 ERV IOL designs are related to differences of power and SA profile. The nominal base power of the IOLs has little effect on their optical quality. However, pupil dynamics plays a key role since it determines the effective add power and optical performance of the ERV IOLs., (Copyright © 2024 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.)

Purpose: This study is to evaluate the optical characteristics of a non-diffractive wavefront-shaping intraocular lens which incorporates surface refractive modifications for shaping the wavefront in order to achieve extended depth of focus (EDoF) and to assess whether the nominal power of this IOL influences the attainable add power., Methods: A commercially available optical bench NIMO TR1504 device (LAMBDA-X, Nivelles, Belgium) was employed to obtain full optical characterization of three non-diffractive EDoF intraocular lenses with + 10 D, + 20 D, and + 30 D powers. After NIMO measurements, data were computed using a custom-made MATLAB program (Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA) to evaluate the optical quality functions, such as the point spread function (PSF), wavefront profiles, and modulation transfer function (MTF) for two pupil sizes: 3 mm and 4.0 mm., Results: The non-diffractive EDoF intraocular lens showed a central serrated power profile behavior with additions of + 2.00 to + 2.50 D over the nominal power. Higher order aberrations were found to be driven mainly by the spherical aberration, with almost null comatic influence. Optical quality metrics showed good values, better for a 3 mm pupil compared to a 4.5 mm one, as expected. The three IOL powers tested showed a very similar behavior in terms of power and aberrometric profiles, with minimal to null differences related to the nominal power., Conclusion: The non-diffractive wavefront-shaping EDoF intraocular lens achieves a near addition up to + 2.50 D aiming for an extended range of vision, almost independently of the base power., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To evaluate visual and refractive outcomes, as well as patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) with emmetropia as a target refraction., Setting: San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain., Design: Prospective, monocentric, noncomparative study., Methods: Adults 21 years or older suitable for cataract surgery and with corneal astigmatism <1.50 diopters (D) were bilaterally implanted with the RayOne EMV IOL and followed up for 3 months. Outcomes measures included refraction, monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), and defocus curve, aberrometry, and satisfaction. Visual symptoms were assessed using the CatQuest-9SF questionnaire., Results: 50 eyes of 25 patients were included. At month 3, the mean manifest spherical equivalent was -0.39 ± 0.28 D, with all eyes within 1.00 D. Binocularly, uncorrected, at distance, 68% of patients could read ≤0.0 logMAR and 95% ≤0.2 logMAR; at intermediate 59% of patients could read ≤0.1 and 100% ≤0.2 logMAR. Mean monocular CDVA was -0.03 ± 0.06 logMAR and mean monocular DCIVA was 0.28 ± 0.07 logMAR. Binocular defocus curve demonstrated a visual acuity ≤0.2 logMAR over a 2 D range from +1.00 D to -1.25 D. Satisfaction was good in 96% of patients., Conclusions: Bilateral implantation of an enhanced monofocal IOL with emmetropia as a target provided excellent binocular CDVA and good DCIVA, with a high level of satisfaction., (Copyright © 2024 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.)

Purpose: To evaluate the optical and aberrometric outcomes of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (ISOPure) compared with those of a standard monofocal lens (MicroPure) having the same platform and material., Methods: A prospective, comparative and randomised clinical study. A total of 28 eyes of 28 patients were randomly assigned to either group. Monocular visual acuity (VA) was measured at distance and intermediate under photopic and mesopic conditions. Aberrometry was analysed for 3.0-, 4.0-, 4.5- and 5.0 mm pupils. The contrast sensitivity defocus curve was measured for 3.0- and 4.5-mm pupils, while the modulation transfer function (MTF) and Strehl ratio (SR) were assessed with a double-pass system. All measurements were performed monocularly 3 months after surgery., Results: No significant differences were found for distance VA. Under photopic conditions, intermediate VA was better with the ISOPure lens, while no significant differences were found between the lenses under mesopic conditions. Internal and total aberrations were higher for the ISOPure lens. No significant differences were found for corneal aberrations. Additionally, both the contrast sensitivity defocus curve and optical quality showed similar behaviour for each lens, with the MTF cut-off frequency exceeding 30 c/deg in both cases., Conclusion: The isofocal ISOPure lens enhanced intermediate VA without affecting distance VA under photopic conditions. Moreover, there were no significant differences in visual quality between the ISOPure and MicroPure lenses, despite the former exhibiting higher internal and total aberrations than the monofocal model., (© 2024 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.)

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of residual astigmatism on the optical and visual performance of an enhanced-monofocal isofocal intraocular lens (EM Isopure, BVI medical, Belgium) compared to a monofocal one (Micropure, BVI medical, Belgium)., Methods: Laboratory investigation and prospective, comparative and randomized clinical study. Optical quality was assessed on an optical bench for 2.0, 3.0, and 4.5 mm pupils. The effect of residual astigmatism was investigated from through-focus images recorded with increasing amounts of regular positive astigmatism induced with a deformable mirror. To evaluate the impact of residual astigmatism, 28 eyes of 28 patients were randomly assigned to either group. Residual astigmatism was induced with positive and negative cylinder lenses at 90 and 180°. Visual acuity (VA) was measured at each step., Results: The optical performance of both IOLs was quite similar for 2.0 and 3.0 mm pupils. For 4.5-mm pupil, the EM Isopure showed a significant reduction of its optical quality in comparison with the monofocal IOL. When visual performance was evaluated, no statistically significant differences were found for any power of induced astigmatism. More differences were found when positive induced astigmatism was compared within each group, and VA was better when the astigmatism was induced at 180° vs. 90°. The greatest differences were found for and induced positive astigmatism of + 1.50D (p = 0.009 for Isopure and p = 0.023 for Micropure)., Conclusions: The tolerance to residual astigmatism of the EM Isopure lens is similar to that of a reference monofocal lens with pupils up to 3.5 mm., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the objective refractions obtained by autorefraction and aberrometry under different lighting conditions with an isofocal intraocular lens (Isopure, BVI medical, Liége, Belgium) compared to a monofocal control lens (Micropure, BVI medical, Liége, Belgium) with the same platform and material., Methods: Prospective, comparative and randomized study on patients undergoing cataract surgery and bilateral isofocal or monofocal IOL implantation. A total of 44 subjects were randomly assigned to either the isofocal group (n = 22) or the Micropure (n = 22). Manifest refraction (MR) was always performed under the same lighting conditions for all the patients. For objective refraction the autorefractor KR8800 and the aberrometer OPD-Scan III (Nidek Inc., Tokyo, Japan.) were used. For each eye included in the study, six result sets were collected: MR, AR (autorefraction measured with the autorefractor), WF-P and WF-M (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, photopic and mesopic pupil size), OPD-C and OPD-M (autorefraction measured with the aberrometer in photopic and mesopic conditions)., Results: The mean sphere for MR was 0.03 ± 0.32D for the Isopure group and 0.24 ± 0.22D for the monofocal group (p = 0.013). For the Isopure group, Friedman analysis showed statistically significant differences for sphere measured with WF-P (p = 0.035), WF-M (p = 0.018) and OPD-M (p = 0.000), and SE measured with OPD-M (p = 0.004). In the Micropure lens group, the Friedman analysis showed differences for all values studied (p < 0.05). Correlation coefficients showed that AR is the objective method with the strongest correlation values for all components of refraction for both groups., Conclusion: The modification of the surfaces of the isofocal lens does not have a negative impact on the refraction obtained by AR compared to a standard monofocal intraocular lens., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Clinical Relevance: It is important to distinguish between visual acuity, optical quality and quality of vision when outcomes obtained with intraocular lenses are evaluated. These parameters, that includeobjective and subjective tests, should be assessed to obtain results that are not biased., Background: To assess the difference in visual and optical quality between two monofocal intraocular lens models., Methods: : This was a prospective, parallel and randomised clinical study conducted at Miranza IOA, a private clinic in Madrid, Spain. Sixty patients were implanted bilaterally, 30 per group, with two aspheric IOLs with induced spherical aberration of -0.27 μm for Group A and -0.20 μm for Group B. Visual outcomes obtained at 1 and 3 months after surgery included both uncorrected (UCVA) and corrected monocular distance visual acuity (DCVA), objective scattering index (OSI), modulation transfer function (MTF) cut-off, Strehl Ratio (SR), contrast sensitivity defocus curve (CSDC), intraocular lens spherical aberration (SA), and longitudinal chromatic aberration of the eye. Activity limitations in daily life were assessed using CatQuest-9SF questionnaire., Results: There were statistically significant differences for DCVA (0.04 LogMAR; p = .008) and SR (0.03; p = .003) between groups. Outcomes related to CSDC showed statistically significant differences for vergences between -0.50 D and +1.00 D (3 mm pupil) and for vergences of 0.00 D and +0.50 D (4.5 mm pupil) between groups. Overall, Group A showed better results regarding visual and optical quality, including a lower longitudinal chromatic aberration result in comparison to Group B. Patient satisfaction evaluated with CatQuest-9SF showed that Group A achieved better outcomes, although the differences were statistically significant only for the 'Reading text on television' item (p = 0.027)., Conclusions: Both intraocular lens models showed excellent quantity of vision, optical and visual quality as well as high patient satisfaction. Despite this, the the Group A model provided slightly better outcomes than the Group B model.

Purpose: Intraocular lens designs are constantly evolving, trying to obtain more spectacle independence after cataract surgery. This advantage can be linked to some disadvantages, such as optical quality decrease. For that reason, it is important to assess, not only the amount of vision provided but also the quality of vision once they are implanted. The purpose of the present work was to compare the visual performance between two monofocal intraocular models: a standard model and a monofocal with enhanced intermediate vision lens., Methods: Prospective, randomized, comparative study. Sixty adult subjects scheduled to undergo bilateral cataract surgery and IOL implantation were randomized to receive one of the two IOLs in both eyes at Miranza IOA, Madrid, Spain (group A: monofocal with enhanced intermediate vision lens and group B: standard monofocal lens). Monocular outcomes (right eyes) determined 1 and 3 months postoperatively were photopic corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), perceived halo, corrected intermediate-distance contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations. The impact of the new IOL in the postoperative management with autorefraction devices was also evaluated., Results: No differences were found in CDVA between the two groups. Significant differences were detected between the two lenses evaluated in both total HOA (p = 0.028) and internal HOA (p = 0.037). Contrast sensitivity and halometry results obtained at 1 month were similar across the two IOL groups., Conclusion: In patients undergoing cataract surgery, monofocal with enhanced intermediate vision IOL offered similar distance performance and contrast sensitivity along with perceived HOA and halos compared with the standard monofocal IOLs tested., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To evaluate the agreement between the biometric measurements used to calculate the size of the implantable collamer lenses (ICL) with different technologies: swept-source optical coherence tomography, spectral domain optical coherence tomography, and Scheimpflug tomography., Methods: This retrospective observational study included subjects undergoing refractive surgery with posterior chamber phakic IOL implantation to correct their myopia. The anterior chamber depth (ACD) and the horizontal white to white (WTW) or the angle to angle (ATA) distance were measured with the following four devices: the IOLMaster 700 biometer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), based on swept-source optical coherence tomography; the Cirrus and Visante optical coherence tomographs (Carl Zeiss Meditec) based on low-coherence interferometry; and the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany)., Results: In the horizontal corneal diameter measurements, there were statistically significant differences between Pentacam-IOLMaster 700 pair (P < 0.001) and Pentacam-Visante pair (P < 0.001). WTW from CIRRUS showed the lowest correlation when paired with Pentacam and IOLMaster 700 (R 2 = 0.452 and 0.385 for Visante and R 2 = 0.494 and 0.426 for Cirrus). Regarding the linear correlation of the ACD measurements, all pairs of devices were statistically significant and all of them showed a very good correlation index., Conclusion: There is a good agreement between the different devices under evaluation for ACD measurements. As for WTW, the values measured with the different devices showed large discrepancies with low correlation levels, especially when comparing the tomographs with the other devices under evaluation., Competing Interests: None

Purpose: To compare the time spent on toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation during cataract surgery using a manual-marking vs a digital image-guided system (t Verion) for toric IOL alignment., Setting: Instituto Oftalmológico Quirónsalud ophthalmology clinic, A Coruña, Spain., Design: Experimental and longitudinal study., Methods: A total of 98 eyes of 65 participants (68.2 ± 12.2 years) were divided into 2 groups: 49 eyes operated with toric IOL alignment using a manual-marking technique (manual group) and another 49 eyes operated using image-guided marking (Verion group). The primary variable for comparison between both groups was cataract surgery time. Other outcomes such as toric IOL misalignment, spherical equivalent, astigmatism, uncorrected distance visual acuity, and corrected distance visual acuity were also measured., Results: The total cataract surgery time was 2:09 minutes shorter (P < .001) with the Verion system (12:12 ± 2:20 in 49 eyes operated) compared with the surgical procedure performed using manual marking (15:27 ± 3:04 in 49 eyes operated). One month after surgery, there were no statistical differences in terms of toric IOL misalignment between the Verion (3.38 ± 2.95 degrees) and the manual group (4.66 ± 3.95 degrees). No statistical differences were observed between groups for refractive and visual outcomes (P ≥ .05)., Conclusions: The cataract surgery time was reduced when the procedure was assisted using the Verion system to align the IOL compared with manual marking, maintaining the same efficacy in terms of toric IOL misalignment, residual refraction, and visual acuity., (Copyright © 2021 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.)

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 develop a new method that makes it easy to detect accuracy deficiencies of any intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas and to test it on 9 different formulas., Setting: IOA, Madrid, Spain., Design: Retrospective observational case series., Methods: This study's first stage included 3519 eyes from 3519 candidates for cataract surgery for which frequency distributions for the following biometric eye parameters were computed: axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), white-to-white (WTW), and mean corneal radius (Rm). The resulting data for each parameter were fifth, 25th, 75th and 95th percentiles, which allowed definition of the corresponding normality range. In a second stage, the new graphic-representation method was tested for 9 different formulas in a sample of 70 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with multifocal IOL (mIOL) implantation., Results: Normality ranges (defined as the 25th to 75th percentile interval) were 22.84 to 24.42 mm for AL, 2.86 to 3.39 mm for ACD, 4.36 to 4.88 mm for LT, 11.64 to 12.19 mm for WTW, and 7.52 to 7.87 mm for Rm, with lower sizes in women. No significant differences were found among the 9 formulas for percentage of eyes in ±0.50 diopters (D) (P = .82) or ±1.00 D (P = .97). The graphical method showed less accuracy in ±0.50 D for ACDs from 2.46 to 2.85 mm (5th to 25th percentile) for several formulas (P < .05)., Conclusions: Nine formulas showed nonsignificant differences in the general predictability for a sample of eyes that were candidates to mIOL implantation. Predictability in this sample decreased for short ACDs.

The purpose was to review and document the methods used to calculate the power of the intraocular lens (IOL) to be implanted in cataract surgery in the specific scenario of eyes with keratoconus. This review included all scientific articles published in English that focused on the parameters and formulas used to calculate the power of the IOL to be implanted in eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery. There are few publications that show in detail how IOL power is calculated in these particular cases. If the keratometric value used was based on the standard refractive index (1.3375), it resulted in a postoperative refractive error with a tendency to hyperopia. The SRK/T formula yielded the best outcomes. The greater the severity of keratoconus the greater was the deviation of the postoperative refractive status from the target outcome.

Purpose: To evaluate changes in angle κ after the implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and to assess the postoperative outcomes of patients with different angle κ values., Setting: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain., Design: Prospective trial., Methods: Sixty-three eyes from 63 patients who had bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (POD F, PhysIOL) were included. Pupil offset was used as the best estimate of angle κ and was measured using Pentacam (Oculus) preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively. Postoperative refractive outcomes (sphere, cylinder, and manifest refraction spherical equivalent) and visual outcomes at far, intermediate, and near distance were assessed and compared between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. Quality of vision was assessed using a subjective questionnaire., Results: There was a significant decrease in pupil offset values postoperatively (mean: 0.197 ± 0.12 mm) compared with those preoperatively (mean: 0.239 ± 0.12 mm), with a mean decrease of -0.042 mm (P = .0002). The same significant decrease was found for both right and left eyes, when analyzed separately. No statistically significant difference was found in any of the refractive and visual acuity outcomes between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. The majority of patients (14 of 16) complaining of significant halos had eyes with small pupil offset., Conclusions: Large pupil offset did not negatively affect visual and refractive outcomes. The tolerance to larger pupil offset might be due to the IOL optical design, with the first diffractive ring being larger than other commonly used multifocal IOLs. More studies comparing various diffractive IOL models would be useful to confirm such hypothesis.

Purpose: To determine whether pupil dilation affects biometric measurements and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation made using the new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer (IOLMaster 700 © ; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany)., Procedures: Eighty-one eyes of 81 patients evaluated for cataract surgery were prospectively examined using the IOLMaster 700 © before and after pupil dilation with tropicamide 1%. The measurements made were: axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), aqueous chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), mean keratometry (MK), white-to-white distance (WTW) and pupil diameter (PD). Holladay II and SRK/T formulas were used to calculate IOL power. Agreement between measurement modes (with and without dilation) was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots., Results: Mean patient age was 75.17±7.54 years (range: 57-92). Of the variables determined, CCT, ACD, LT and WTW varied significantly according to pupil dilation. Excellent intraobserver correlation was observed between measurements made before and after pupil dilation. Mean IOL power calculation using the Holladay 2 and SRK/T formulas were unmodified by pupil dilation., Conclusions: The use of pupil dilation produces statistical yet not clinically significant differences in some IOLMaster 700 © measurements. However, it does not affect mean IOL power calculation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

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 measure the longitudinal chromatic aberration in vivo using psychophysical and wavefront-sensing methods in patients with bilateral implantation of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) of similar aspheric design but different materials (hydrophobic Podeye and hydrophilic Poday)., Setting: Instituto de Optica, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid, Spain., Design: Prospective observational study., Methods: Measurements were performed with the use of psychophysical (480 to 700 nm) and wavefront-sensing (480 to 950 nm) methods using a custom-developed adaptive optics system. Chromatic difference-of-focus curves were obtained from best-focus data at each wavelength, and the longitudinal chromatic aberration was obtained from the slope of linear regressions to those curves., Results: The longitudinal chromatic aberration from psychophysical measurements was 1.37 diopters (D) ± 0.08 (SD) (hydrophobic) and 1.21 ± 0.08 D (hydrophilic). From wavefront-sensing, the longitudinal chromatic aberration was 0.88 ± 0.07 D and 0.73 ± 0.09 D, respectively. At 480 to 950 nm, the longitudinal chromatic aberration was 1.27 ± 0.09 D (hydrophobic) and 1.02 ± 0.13 D (hydrophilic). The longitudinal chromatic aberration was consistently higher in eyes with the hydrophobic IOL than in eyes with the hydrophilic IOL (a difference of 0.16 D and 0.15 D, respectively). Similar to findings in young phakic eyes, the longitudinal chromatic aberration from the psychophysical method was consistently higher than from wavefront-sensing, by 0.48 D (35.41%) for the hydrophobic IOL and 0.48 D (39.43%) for the hydrophilic IOL., Conclusion: Longitudinal chromatic aberrations were smaller with hydrophilic IOLs than with hydrophobic IOLs of the same design., Financial Disclosure: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned., (Copyright © 2015 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)