Rotational Stability and Visual Outcomes of V4c Toric Phakic Intraocular Lenses

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 489-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hun Lee ◽  
David Sung Yong Kang ◽  
Jin Young Choi ◽  
Byoung Jin Ha ◽  
Eung Kweon Kim ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Poyales ◽  
Nuria Garzón ◽  
Daniel Pizarro ◽  
Santiago Cobreces ◽  
Adolfo Hernández

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 781-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osama M. Mustafa ◽  
Christina Prescott ◽  
Fares Alsaleh ◽  
Daliya Dzhaber ◽  
Yassine J. Daoud

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Juan Esteve-Taboada ◽  
Alberto Domínguez-Vicent ◽  
Teresa Ferrer-Blasco ◽  
José F. Alfonso ◽  
Robert Montés-Micó

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Gros-Otero ◽  
Samira Ketabi ◽  
Rafael Cañones-Zafra ◽  
Montserrat Garcia-Gonzalez ◽  
Cesar Villa-Collar ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To compare the anterior surface roughness of two commercially available posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses (IOLs) using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Methods Four phakic IOLs were used for this prospective, experimental study: two Visian ICL EVO+ V5 lenses and two iPCL 2.0 lenses. All of them were brand new, were not previously implanted in humans, were monofocal and had a dioptric power of − 12 diopters (D). The anterior surface roughness was assessed using a JPK NanoWizard II® atomic force microscope in contact mode immersed in liquid. Olympus OMCL-RC800PSA commercial silicon nitride cantilever tips were used. Anterior surface roughness measurements were made in 7 areas of 10 × 10 μm at 512 × 512 point resolution. The roughness was measured using the root-mean-square (RMS) value within the given regions. Results The mean of all anterior surface roughness measurements was 6.09 ± 1.33 nm (nm) in the Visian ICL EVO+ V5 and 3.49 ± 0.41 nm in the iPCL 2.0 (p = 0.001). Conclusion In the current study, we found a statistically significant smoother anterior surface in the iPCL 2.0 phakic intraocular lenses compared with the VISIAN ICL EVO+ V5 lenses when studied with atomic force microscopy.


Ophthalmology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Jiménez-Alfaro ◽  
José M Benı́tez del Castillo ◽  
Julian Garcı́a-Feijoó ◽  
Javier G Gil de Bernabé ◽  
José M Serrano de la Iglesia

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 725-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Bohac ◽  
Marija Anticic ◽  
Natasa Draca ◽  
Bojan Kozomara ◽  
Iva Dekaris ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 620-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei-Han Chua ◽  
Leonard H. Yuen ◽  
Jocelyn Chua ◽  
Gillian Teh ◽  
Warren E. Hill

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document