Extended Depth of Focus With Induced Spherical Aberration in Light-Adjustable Intraocular Lenses

2014 ◽  
Vol 157 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eloy A. Villegas ◽  
Encarna Alcón ◽  
Sandra Mirabet ◽  
Inés Yago ◽  
José María Marín ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spherical Aberration ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Depth Of Focus ◽  
Extended Depth Of Focus

scholarly journals Influence of Angle Alpha on Visual Quality after Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miaomiao Qin ◽  
Min Ji ◽  
Tianqiu Zhou ◽  
Yurong Yuan ◽  
Jiawei Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Spherical Aberration ◽  
Visual Quality ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Modulation Transfer ◽  
Depth Of Focus ◽  
Extended Depth Of Focus ◽  
Postoperative Changes ◽  
Angle Alpha

Abstract Background: To assess postoperative changes in angle alpha, and to evaluate the postoperative visual quality of patients with different angle alpha values after implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).Methods: Seventy-nine eyes of 79 patients who had phacoemulsification with EDOF IOLs implantation were enrolled. A cut-off value of 0.3 mm, 0.4 mm, and 0.5 mm in preoperative angle alpha was chosen to divide eyes into groups. Distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities, modulation transfer function (MTF), and aberrations were recorded during a 6-month follow-up. A patient questionnaire was completed. Results: There were no significant differences in angle alpha postoperatively compared to preoperatively. No significant differences were found in visual acuity and MTF between all groups. With 5mm pupil diameter, there were significant differences of higher-order aberrations and spherical aberration in ocular aberration and internal aberration between angle alpha＜0.4 mm and angle alpha≥ 0.4 mm. Additionally, significant differences of coma were also added in cut-off value of 0.5 mm. When the value of angle alpha is 0.4 mm or higher, there were significant differences in the score of halos and glare.Conclusions: Angle alpha did not affect visual acuity, but the value of 0.4 mm or higher in angle alpha affected the visual quality under scotopic conditions and occurrence of halos and glare. For patients with 0.4 mm or higher in angle alpha, the decision to implant a EDOF IOL should be carefully considered.

scholarly journals Comparison of trifocal or hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueyang Zhong ◽  
Kai Wang ◽  
Xiaoning Yu ◽  
Xin Liu ◽  
Ke Yao
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Visual Quality ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Depth Of Focus ◽  
Refractive Lens Exchange ◽  
Extended Depth Of Focus ◽  
Refractive Lens ◽  
Near Visual Acuity

AbstractThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes following implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or a hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL in cataract or refractive lens exchange surgeries. We examined 13 comparative studies with bilateral implantation of trifocal (898 eyes) or hybrid multifocal-EDOF (624 eyes) IOLs published through 1 March 2020. Better uncorrected and corrected near visual acuity (VA) were observed in the trifocal group (MD: − 0.143, 95% CI: − 0.192 to − 0.010, P < 0.001 and MD: − 0.149, 95% CI: − 0.217 to − 0.082, P < 0.001, respectively), while the hybrid multifocal-EDOF group presented better uncorrected intermediate VA (MD: 0.055, 95% CI: 0.016 to 0.093, P = 0.005). Trifocal IOLs were more likely to achieve spectacle independence at near distance (RR: 1.103, 95% CI: 1.036 to 1.152, P = 0.002). The halo photic effect was generated more frequently by the trifocal IOLs (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 1.025 to 1.696, P = 0.031). Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded comparable results between groups. Trifocal IOLs demonstrated better performance at near distance but apparently led to more photic disturbances. Our findings provided the most up-to-date and comprehensive evidence by comparing the benefits of advanced IOLs in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Comparison of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses with a monofocal lens: a multi-centre randomised trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Reinhard ◽  
Philip Maier ◽  
Daniel Böhringer ◽  
Eckart Bertelmann ◽  
Tobias Brockmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Depth Of Focus ◽  
Extended Depth Of Focus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Monofocal Iol ◽  
Monocular Depth ◽  
Binocular Depth

Abstract Purpose The AT LARA 829MP is a next-generation extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) providing continuous vision over a range of distances. The aim of this prospective multi-centre randomised trial was to compare two EDOF IOLs and one monofocal IOL. Methods Cataract patients between 50 and 80 years were randomised for bilateral implantation with either the AT LARA 829MP (EDOF), the TECNIS Symfony (EDOF) or the CT ASPHINA 409MP (monofocal). Follow-up was at 1 to 2 weeks, 1 month and 4 to 6 months. Results A total of 211 patients were randomised and included in the final analysis. Monocular depth of focus was significantly better for AT LARA 829MP eyes compared with that for TECNIS Symfony at all thresholds (p = 0.024, 0.001 and 0.006, for 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 logMAR respectively) with no significant difference for binocular depth of focus. LARA eyes had significantly better monocular depth of focus at all levels compared with ASPHINA eyes (all p < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference between Symfony and ASPHINA eyes at 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR. Both EDOF IOLs were significantly better than the monofocal ASPHINA at all levels for binocular depth of focus (LARA: all p < 0.0001; Symfony: all p = 0.002). Distance visual acuity was similar for all IOLs at 6 months; intermediate and near visual acuity were significantly better for the EDOF IOLs than for the monofocal (p < 0.0001). Refraction improved in all groups relative to baseline. Contrast sensitivity was higher with the CT ASPHINA 409MP but both EDOF lenses had a better spectacle independence rate. At 6 months, all IOLs were well centred with no cases of tilt. No general safety issues were raised for any of the groups. Conclusion The two EDOF intraocular lenses investigated provided good visual outcomes with comparable visual acuity at all distances. The AT LARA 829MP provided the widest monocular depth of focus at 0.1 and 0.2 logMAR, with a clear superiority compared with the monofocal IOL. TECNIS Symfony was superior to the monofocal control at 0.3 logMAR. Spectacle independence and patient satisfaction were comparable. Trial registration Trial registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ under the identification NCT03172351 (date of registration 1 June May 2017).

scholarly journals Comparison of Patient Outcomes following Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Yining Guo ◽  
Yinhao Wang ◽  
Ran Hao ◽  
Xiaodan Jiang ◽  
Ziyuan Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Visual Disturbance ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Depth Of Focus ◽  
Near Vision ◽  
Extended Depth Of Focus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Comprehensive Search

Purpose. The purpose is to compare the outcomes of implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (TIOLs) and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov was conducted in March 2020 to identify relevant studies. A meta-analysis of the results was performed. Patients implanted with EDOF IOLs or TIOLs in previous studies were included. The primary outcomes of the study were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and defocus curve. Results. TIOLs and EDOF IOLs provided comparable binocular UDVA (MD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.04, 0.03, logMAR). However, EDOF IOLs provided better UIVA (MD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.01, logMAR) and worse UNVA (MD: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.14, logMAR) than TIOLs. Fewer patients achieved spectacle independence after implantation of EDOF IOLs (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.87) than after implantation of TIOLs, especially for near vision (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic or mesopic conditions with both IOLs. Patient satisfaction after implantation of both IOLs was high. Conclusion. EDOF IOLs and TIOLs provide comparable distance vision. However, EDOF IOLs provide better intermediate vision and worse near vision than TIOLs. The advantages of EDOF IOLs over TIOLs in terms of CS, aberrations, and visual disturbance are not significant. Patients are satisfied with both types of IOLs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document