<p>Evaluating Rotational Stability of an Extended Depth of Focus Toric Intraocular Lens Using a Slit Lamp and Image-Based Analysis</p>

Abstract Background: Evaluation of clinical and functional results of a new extended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF-IOL). Methods: Fourteen cataract patients (twenty-eight bilateral implantations) were assessed for uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities; uncorrected (UNVA), distance-corrected (DCNVA) and best corrected (CNVA) near visual acuities; and uncorrected (UIVA) and distance-corrected (DCIVA) intermediate visual acuities - as well as binocular defocus curves. Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity was recorded. Reading acuity was evaluated using an electronic reading desk at fixed distances and at the patient’s preferred near and intermediate distances. Visual symptoms were assessed with a halo and glare simulator plus a patient questionnaire which also recorded quality of life. Results: Median postoperative monocular UDVA was 0.13logMAR (range -0.08 to 0.42logMAR), median CDVA was -0.01logMAR (range -0.20 to 0.22logMAR), median UIVA at 80 cm was -0.05logMAR (range -0.18 to 0.58logMAR) and median UNVA at 40 cm was 0.14logMAR (range -0.10 to 0.64logMAR). Binocular uncorrected reading acuity was 0.10logMAR at 40 cm and 0.11logMAR at 80 cm. Patients preferred a median intermediate reading distance of 62.8 cm over the predetermined 80 cm, which allowed them to read smaller letter size but did not improve reading acuity. Patients reported a high rate of spectacle independence and satisfaction in everyday life and little to no dysphotopsia. Conclusion: The Mini WELL Ready IOL provided good postoperative functional results at far and intermediate distances and improved the visual and reading acuity at reading distance. The lens caused little to no dysphotopsia.

Download Full-text

Stability and visual outcomes yielded by three intraocular trifocal lenses with same optical zone design but differing material or toricity

European Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1177/1120672118795065 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 417-425 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Francisco Poyales ◽

Nuria Garzón ◽

Daniel Pizarro ◽

Santiago Cobreces ◽

Adolfo Hernández

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Lens ◽

Intraocular Lenses ◽

Rotational Stability ◽

Slit Lamp ◽

Spherical Lens ◽

Visual Outcomes ◽

Loop Design ◽

Optical Zone ◽

Processing Techniques ◽

Visual Results

Purpose: To compare rotational stability, centration and visual outcomes provided by three trifocal lens models that have the same optical zone design but different material, composition, and/or toricity. Methods: The study included 78 patients with symmetric bilateral intraocular lens implantation. The lenses under evaluation were trifocal intraocular lenses made of hydrophilic acrylic material: a spherical lens 26% hydrophilic acrylic (POD FineVision), a similar lens but having a toric design (POD Toric FineVision), and a trifocal lens 25% hydrophilic acrylic material (FineVision/MicroF). Moreover, the lenses share the same optical zone design. The lenses’ rotational stability and centration were measured by means of the PIOLET software, which relies on recording and image processing techniques to determine lens rotation and centration based on slit-lamp images. We also assessed patients’ visual quality by means of 25, 40, and 80 cm VA tests. Results: The best centration results were achieved with the POD Toric FineVision model, although the differences were not statistically significant. As for lens rotation, it was below 5° in all cases under study. Regarding VA, all subjects attained at least 0.3 logMAR for far distance uncorrected VA, at 80 cm VA was about 0.2 logMAR, at 40 cm it was above 0.15 logMAR, and at 25 cm it was about 0.3 logMAR for both lens types. Conclusion: All three intraocular lens models yield excellent visual results at far, near as well as intermediate distances. The POD FineVision and POD Toric FineVision models, with double C-loop design, yielded the best results centration-wise and rotation-wise. Differences had no clinical relevance.

Download Full-text