Automated refraction after trifocal and trifocal toric intraocular lens implantation

Effect of Monofocal, Wavefront-Shaped, and Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses on Scanning-Slit Automated Refraction

PURPOSE

To compare scanning-slit retinoscopy automated refraction spherical equivalent (ARSE) to subjective manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) in normal eyes with four different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs).

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

METHODS

A total of 279 pseudophakic eyes that underwent lens extraction at a private center with implantation of either a wavefront shaped IOL (Acrysof® Vivity, DFT015), a nonapodized diffractive trifocal IOL (Acrysof® Panoptix), or a monofocal IOL with negative spherical aberration (Tecnis ZCBOO) or aberration-free (Envista Mx60E). Patients who had an automated refraction measurement with retinoscopy refractometer and aberrometer (NIDEK OPD Scan III, Nidek Technologies) and subjective refraction data 1-2 months postoperatively were included in the study. Main outcome measured was the difference between automated refraction and subjective refraction.

RESULTS

Sixty-one eyes implanted with a DFT015 IOL, 78 eyes with a TFNT00 IOL, 40 with a ZCBOO IOL and 100 with a Mx60E IOL were enrolled in this study. Statistically significant myopic results were observed when using ARSE compared to MRSE in the DFT015 (-0.95 ± 0.64, -0.33 ± 0.65, P < .001), TFNT00 (-0.43 ± 0.36, -0.2 ± 0.35, P < .001), ZCBOO (-0.81 ± 0.63, -0.4 ± 0.69, P = .008) and Mx60E (-0.75 ± 0.65, -0.45 ± 0.52; P < .05) IOL groups. The absolute difference between the 2 methods was statistically significant in the DFT015 IOL group (0.65 ± 0.49; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Automated refraction yields myopic results in pseudophakic eyes with monofocal and presbyopia correcting IOLs and may be used with caution. Manifest refraction "push-plus" technique should be used in all pseudophakic eyes to avoid over-minus prescriptions, especially in patient with residual refractive error following cataract surgery.

Visual and Refractive Outcomes After Bi-aspheric Trifocal Toric Diffractive Intraocular Lens Implantation

PURPOSE

To assess clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of a new bi-aspheric diffractive intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

Thirty patients underwent bilateral implantation of the Asqelio Trifocal Toric IOL (AST Products, Inc) and were evaluated 3 months postoperatively. Main outcomes included refractive error, photopic monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (UIVA, CDIVA) at 60 cm, and near (UNVA, CDNVA) at 40 cm visual acuities. Mesopic monocular and binocular CDNVA were also measured. Defocus curves, binocular contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare and rotational stability were determined. Patients completed Catquest-9SF and visual symptoms questionnaires.

RESULTS

Average values of binocular photopic CDVA, CDIVA, and CDNVA, and mesopic CDNVA were -0.04 ± 0.06, 0.02 ± 0.08, 0.02 ± 0.07, and 0.22 ± 0.11 logMAR, respectively. All patients achieved cumulative CDVA ⩾ 20/25, and CDIVA and CDNVA of 20/32 or better. Binocular depth of focus was approximately 3.25 diopters (D). Mean postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.08 ± 0.26 D, with 95% of eyes within ±0.50 D. Mean postoperative refractive cylinder was -0.22 ± 0.27 D, with 91.67% of eyes within 0.50 D or less, respectively. IOL rotation averaged 0.25 ± 0.65 degrees, all eyes having rotation of less than 5 degrees. Contrast sensitivity was within or above normal levels under photopic and mesopic conditions, with or without glare, except for 12 cpd under mesopic conditions with glare. Questionnaire responses indicated 96.67% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with postoperative vision, and 80.00% to 96.67% reported no difficulty in different daily activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The Asqelio Trifocal Toric IOL demonstrated favorable outcomes, providing excellent visual performance at all distances, precise refractive results, and remarkable rotational stability. Patients reported high satisfaction levels and minimal difficulty in daily activities. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(6):e407-e419.].

Influence of isofocal intraocular lenses on objective refraction based on autorefraction and aberrometry

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.

Refraction and defocus curves in eyes with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses

Several clinical techniques have been described to evaluate visual performance and optical quality with intraocular lenses (IOL). However, subjective refraction remains one of the most important methods for assessing post-surgery results, taking decisions about retreatments, advanced spectacle prescription and the refinement of the constant for the formula used in the IOL power calculation. Beyond clinical refraction, defocus curve measurement has been described as a complementary tool for assessing visual performance and taking clinical decisions. However, to date, there are no clinical guidelines or evidence-based protocols published in the scientific literature recommended for pseudophakic patients implanted with either monofocal or multifocal IOLs. This narrative review highlights the importance of clinical refraction in pseudophakic eyes, its utility in the decision of different types of IOL implantation, and describes a clinical refraction protocol for eyes implanted with monofocal and multifocal IOLs.

Automated and subjective refraction with monofocal, multifocal, and EDOF intraocular lenses: review

Automated refraction (Scheiner principle) is universally used to start a visual examination. Although the results are reliable in eyes implanted with monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), they may be less precise with multifocal (mIOL) or extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs and can even indicate a refractive error that does not clinically exist. Autorefractor results with monofocal, multifocal, and EDOF IOLs were investigated through literature search analyzing the papers reporting the difference between automated and clinical refraction. The average difference ranged between -0.50 diopter (D) and -1.00 D with most mIOL and EDOF IOLs. The differences in astigmatism were generally much lower. Autorefractors using infrared light cannot measure eyes with high technology IOLs precisely because of the influence of the refractive or of the diffractive near add. The systematic error induced with some IOLs should be mentioned in the IOL label to prevent possible inappropriate refractive procedures to treat apparent myopia.

Subjective and objective clinical outcomes of a new trifocal toric intraocular lens and effect of femtosecond laser cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and quality of life following implantation of PanOptix toric intraocular lens (IOL) and to compare the outcomes following femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and standard cataract surgery (SCS).

METHODS

This comparative retrospective study included 79 eyes of 55 patients underwent cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery between April 2017 and January 2020 in Bayindir Hospital and Kaskaloglu Eye Hospital. Corneal (CA) and refractive astigmatism (RA), uncorrected visual acuities for distant, intermediate, and near (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA), low contrast distance visual acuity, rotational stability, defocus curves, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), visual function-14 (VF-14) test, presence of dysphotopsia, and need for spectacles were evaluated at postoperative third month. Outcomes were compared between FLACS and SCS group.

RESULTS

The mean UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA were 0.05 ± 0.07, 0.08 ± 0.08, and 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR, respectively. All patients achieved ⩾0.3 logMAR uncorrected visual acuity for all distances. UDVA was found significantly better in FLACS group (p = 0.03). All eyes had ⩽1 D of subjective postoperative RA. Defocus curve had two peaks at 0 and -1.50 D. Spectacle independence was achieved in 88.7% of patients. Photopic and mesopic CS was within normal range in all patients. The mean VF-14 score was 98 ± 2. The mean IOL axis rotation was 2.1° ± 2.3°. Only one patient reported seeing disturbing halos.

CONCLUSIONS

This trifocal toric IOL effectively reduced refractive astigmatism and provided excellent visual outcomes with high spectacle independence, patients' satisfaction, and good rotational stability. FLACS might have an impact on optimal postoperative results.

Impact of residual astigmatism and defocus in eyes with trifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To assess the impact on visual function of different residual astigmatic situations combined with 0.50D negative defocus at different distances in patients with trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Clínica Rementería, Madrid, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

The study included patients with the AcrySof® IQ PanOptixTM IOL. Visual acuity (VA) was measured at far distance (0.00 diopters [D] of vergence), at -1.5D, -2.5D and -3.0D of vergence. Residual astigmatism was induced by adding 0.50 and 1.00D cylindrical lenses placed at 90° (against the rule - ATR), 45° (oblique) and 180° (with the rule - WTR). All measurements were made with distance correction (emmetropia as the reference situation) and with a simulated residual myopia of 0.50D.

RESULTS

The study included 61 eyes of 61 patients. Residual astigmatism of 0.50D and 1.0D was induced in 28 and 33 eyes, respectively. For both groups distance and intermediate VA was better for the reference situation (P<0.001 for all cases). With 1.0D of cylinder (without and with induced defocus), the proportion of patients who lost ≥2 lines was higher for the ATR astigmatism. For near vision, differences were smaller for all simulated situations.

CONCLUSION

Residual astigmatism of up to 0.50D, regardless of its orientation, seems to be tolerated at all distances. For astigmatisms of 1.0D, distance and intermediate VA decreased significantly, and ATR orientations showed worse results in a higher proportion of patients. The combination of astigmatism with residual myopia significantly decreased distance VA while this negative shift had less impact on near VA.