Visual acuity and image quality in 5 diffractive intraocular lenses

Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced monofocal IOLs, post-cataract surgery through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from the past 5 years. Parameters such as binocular visual acuities, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and optical quality were used to evaluate efficacy and safety. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17.0 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comprising 2465 subjects were included. Trifocal IOLs exhibited superior uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) compared to monofocal IOLs (MD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22). Both trifocal (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOLs group MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.06) and EDOF IOLs (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.09) showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) than monofocal IOLs. Trifocal IOLs ranked highest in spectacle independence at various distances (AT LISAtri 839MP group: SUCRA 97.5% for distance, 80.7% for intermediate; AcrySof IQ PanOptix group: SUCRA 83.0% for near).

CONCLUSIONS

For cataract patients who want to treat presbyopia, trifocal IOLs demonstrated better visual acuity and spectacle independence at near distances. Different types of trifocal IOL characteristics differ. EDOF and enhanced monofocal IOLs have improved visual quality at intermediate distances.Therefore, It is very important to select the appropriate IOLs based on the lens characteristics and patient needs.

Impact of Light Conditions on Visual Performance following Premium Pseudophakic Presbyopia Corrections

The primary objective of this study was to objectively compare the visual performance of patients following premium pseudophakic presbyopia corrections in different light combinations for near- and intermediate-vision activities of daily living (ADLs). This is a prospective, comparative study. A total of 75 patients populated three study groups: G1-patients with bilateral trifocal implantation, G2-patients with bilateral bifocal implantation, and G3-patients with bilateral monofocal implantation. All participants addressed 10 ADLs in nine combinations of light temperature (3000 K, 4000 K, and 6000 K) and light intensity (25 fc, 50 fc, and 75 fc) and declared their subjectively optimal light combination while reading. G2 and G3 had the best total ADL scores in 6000 K/75 fc, while G1 had the best total ADL score in 4000 K/75 fc. Total ADL, easy ADL, and moderate difficulty ADL scores were significantly better in G2, while difficult ADL score was significantly better in G1. The majority of all groups selected 6000 K/75 fc as the most comfortable light combination, and no group selected 3000 K and 25 fc. In conclusion, trifocal patients benefit from intense daylight, while bifocal and monofocal patients benefit from intense, cold lighting. Trifocal patients present superior near-vision capacity in difficult near-vision daily tasks, while bifocal patients present superiority in easy and moderate-difficulty ADLs.

Comparative Analysis of a New Hybrid EDOF-Multifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens with a Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To compare visual acuity, defocus curve and visual quality of life performances of a new hybrid refractive-diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and a trifocal diffractive IOL.

METHODS

Patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of ZFR00V or TFNT00 IOLs were enrolled in this study. The main outcomes were defined as uncorrected distant, intermediate and near visual acuities (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA, respectively), defocus curve and VF-14 questionnaire aimed for visual performance.

RESULTS

Fifty patients, of whom 30 had bilateral ZFR00V implantation, were enrolled in the study. Patients with ZFR00V had significantly better UIVA than patients with TFNT00 (0.05 ± 0.03 vs. 0.07 ± 0.04 logMAR, P = 0.02). Defocus curve showed significantly higher visual acuity in intermediate range for ZFR00V IOL between -1.00 and -1.50 dioptres (all P < 0.05). All patients had good visual performance with mean VF-14 scores above 3 points with no significant difference between two IOL models. Spectacle independence was 100% for both distant and near vision in both group of patients.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral implantation of ZFR00V in cataract patients shows better intermediate visual acuity scores and similar daily visual performance when compared with trifocal TFNT00 IOL.

Visual acuity, defocus curve and patient satisfaction of a new hybrid EDOF-multifocal diffractive intraocular lens

Purpose: To evaluate the visual acuity, defocus curve and visual quality of life following bilateral implantation of a new hybrid extended depth of focus (EDOF)-multifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of Tecnis Synergy IOL were enrolled in this study. The main outcomes were defined as uncorrected distant, intermediate and near visual acuities (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA, respectively), defocus curve and VF-14 questionnaire aimed for visual performance. Results: The mean ± SD values for binocular UDVA, UIVA and UNVA were -0.01 ± 0.04, 0.05 ± 0.03 and 0.03 ± 0.05 logMAR, respectively. Defocus curve showed a continuous vision above 0.16 logMAR between +0.50 D and -2.50 D. Patients had good visual performance with mean VF-14 scores above 3 points. Driving at night (3.47 ± 0.64) was found to be the most difficult task to perform. Spectacle independence was 100% for both distant and near vision. Conclusion: Bilateral implantation of Tecnis Synergy IOL in cataract patients shows good visual acuity and performance, covering a good visual range without any need of spectacles.

Intraocular lens optic edge design for the prevention of posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery

BACKGROUND

Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) is a clouding of the posterior part of the lens capsule, a skin-like transparent structure, which surrounds the crystalline lens in the human eye. PCO is the most common postoperative complication following modern cataract surgery with implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL). The main symptoms of PCO are a decrease in visual acuity, 'cloudy', blurred vision and reduced contrast sensitivity. PCO is treated with a neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) laser to create a small opening in the opaque capsule and regain a clear central visual axis. This capsulotomy might cause further ocular complications, such as raised intraocular pressure or swelling of the central retina (macular oedema). This procedure is also a significant financial burden for health care systems worldwide. In recent decades, there have been advances in the selection of IOL materials and optimisation of IOL designs to help prevent PCO formation after cataract surgery. These include changes to the side structures holding the lens in the centre of the lens capsule bag, called IOL haptics, and IOL optic edge designs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different IOL optic edge designs on PCO after cataract surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS), the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 17 November 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different types of IOL optic edge design. Our prespecified primary outcome was the proportion of eyes with Nd:YAG capsulotomy one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included PCO score, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and quality of life score at one year. Due to availability of important long-term data, we also presented data at longer-term follow-up which is a post hoc change to our protocol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (1065 people, 1834 eyes) that compared sharp- and round-edged IOLs. Eight of these studies were within-person studies whereby one eye received a sharp-edged IOL and the fellow eye a round-edged IOL. The IOL materials were acrylic (2 studies), silicone (4 studies), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA, 3 studies) and different materials (1 study). The studies were conducted in Austria, Germany, India, Japan, Sweden and the UK. Five studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias in all domains. There were few cases of Nd:YAG capsulotomy at one year (primary outcome): 1/371 in sharp-edged and 4/371 in round-edged groups. The effect estimate was in favour of sharp-edged IOLs but the confidence intervals were very wide and compatible with higher or lower chance of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in sharp-edged compared with round-edged lenses (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 742 eyes). This corresponds to seven fewer cases of Nd:YAG capsulotomy per 1000 sharp-edged IOLs inserted compared with round-edged IOLs (95% CI 9 fewer to 7 more). We judged this as low-certainty evidence, downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias. A similar reduced risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in sharp-edge compared with round-edge IOLs was seen at two, three and five years but as the number of Nd:YAG capsulotomy events increased with longer follow-up this effect was more precisely measured at longer follow-up: two years, risk ratio (RR) 0.35 (0.16 to 0.80); 703 eyes (6 studies); 89 fewer cases per 1000; three years, RR 0.21 (0.11 to 0.41); 538 eyes (6 studies); 170 fewer cases per 1000; five years, RR 0.21 (0.10 to 0.45); 306 eyes (4 studies); 331 fewer cases per 1000. Data at 9 years and 12 years were only available from one study. All studies reported a PCO score. Four studies reported the AQUA (Automated Quantification of After-Cataract) score, four studies reported the EPCO (Evaluation of PCO) score and two studies reported another method of quantifying PCO. It was not possible to pool these data due to the way they were reported, but all studies consistently reported a statistically significant lower average PCO score (of the order of 0.5 to 3 units) with sharp-edged IOLs compared with round-edged IOLs. We judged this to be moderate-certainty evidence downgrading for risk of bias. The logMAR visual acuity score was lower (better) in eyes that received a sharp-edged IOL but the difference was small and likely to be clinically unimportant at one year (mean difference (MD) -0.06 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to 0; 2 studies, 153 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Similar effects were seen at longer follow-up periods but non-statistically significant data were less fully reported: two years MD -0.01 logMAR (-0.05 to 0.02); 2 studies, 311 eyes; three years MD -0.09 logMAR (-0.22 to 0.03); 2 studies, 117 eyes; data at five years only available from one study. None of the studies reported quality of life. Very low-certainty evidence on adverse events did not suggest any important differences between the groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that sharp-edged IOLs are likely to be associated with less PCO formation than round-edged IOLs, with less Nd:YAG capsulotomy. The effects on visual acuity were less certain. The impact of these lenses on quality of life has not been assessed and there are only very low-certainty comparative data on adverse events.

Clinical Outcomes after Mix-and-Match Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus and Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes after bilateral mix-and-match cataract surgery using extended depth of focus (EDOF) and diffractive multifocal (DMF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). Setting. Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

Design

Prospective clinical study.

Methods

Thirty-seven patients underwent TECNIS Symfony EDOF IOL (ZXR00) implantation in the dominant eye, and TECNIS +3.25 DMF IOL (ZLB00) implantation in the nondominant eye. Patients were followed up for 3 months; uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA), uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuity (UIVA and UNVA), contrast sensitivity, defocus curves, stereopsis, and patient satisfaction were assessed.

Results

At 3 months, the mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) of UDVA was 0.07 ± 0.09 in EDOF IOL eyes, 0.12 ± 0.11 in DMF IOL eyes, and 0.02 ± 0.05 in both eyes. UIVA was 0.11 ± 0.11 in EDOF IOL eyes, 0.16 ± 0.12 in DMF IOL eyes, and 0.04 ± 0.07 in both eyes. UNVA was 0.25 ± 0.15 in EDOF IOL eyes, 0.22 ± 0.16 in DMF IOL eyes, and 0.13 ± 0.13 in both eyes. Thirty patients (81.1%) were more than satisfied with near vision, and 8 patients (21.6%) complained of severe glare and halo. Spectacle independence for near vision was achieved in 34 patients (91.9%), and 31 patients (83.8%) had better than a 50-second arc of stereopsis.

Conclusion

Mix-and-match cataract surgery with EDOF and DMF IOL implantation provided good visual outcomes for all distances. Additionally, excellent patient satisfaction was achieved with a high level of spectacle independence and acceptable photic phenomena.

Evaluation of Visual and Subjective Outcomes with Mix-and-Match of Three One-Piece Tecnis Multifocal IOLs of Varying Add Powers

Purpose

To evaluate visual and subjective outcomes after bilateral mix-and-match implantation of one-piece diffractive multifocal IOLs in different near add powers (+2.75 D, +3.25 D, +4.0 D).

Setting

Four US clinics.

Design

Prospective, multi-center, parallel comparison clinical study design.

Patients and Methods

Two treatment groups received implantation with either the +3.25 D (ZLB00) or the +4.00 D (ZMB00) Tecnis^® Multifocal 1-piece IOL in their non-dominant eye, and the +2.75 D (ZKB00) Tecnis Multifocal 1-piece IOL in their dominant eye (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Santa Ana, CA). Each study patient underwent the same routine cataract extraction procedures for each eye, with the second eye scheduled to undergo cataract extraction within 7 to 30 days after the 1st eye surgery. Visual and subjective outcomes were evaluated at 90 days after 2nd eye surgery for the two groups: +3.25D/+2.75D (n=41) and +4.00D/+2.75D (n=36).

Results

Mean binocular uncorrected distance visual acuities at 90 days postop were 0.02 ± 0.082 (+3.25D/+2.75D) vs 0.07 ± 0.128 (+4.00D/+2.75D) (p=0.025). Mean binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuities at 90 days postop were 0.14 ± 0.185 (+3.25D/+2.75D) vs 0.26 ± 0.261 (+4.00D/+2.75D) (p=0.024). Mean binocular uncorrected near visual acuities at 90 days postop were 0.06 ± 0.098 (+3.25D/+2.75D) vs 0.19 ± 0.286 (+4.00D/+2.75D) (p=0.018). Over 88% of patients reported “none” for visual symptoms of glare, halos, starburst, or other. Freedom from glasses or contacts was reported by groups +3.25D/+2.75D and +4.00D/+2.75D as follows: distance (95.1% vs 97.1%), intermediate (92.7% vs 94.1%), and near activities (82.9% vs 64.7%).

Conclusion

At 90 days postoperatively, both groups demonstrated good visual and subjective outcomes; however, differences in near and intermediate outcomes favored the +3.25/+2.75 IOL combination.

Clinicaltrials.gov Registration

NCT02863159 (08/11/2016).

Comparison of reading performance with low add bifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses implanted with mini-monovision

PURPOSE

To evaluate reading performance, preferred reading distance, and spectacle independence in patients implanted with a low add multifocal or an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) after phacoemulsification.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients were randomized into two groups: the diffractive multifocal Tecnis + 2.75 D (ZKB00) IOL (Tecnis + 2.75 group; 15 patients) or the EDOF Tecnis Symfony (ZXR00) IOL (Symfony group; 14 patients) for bilateral implantation with mini-monovision. Reading performance parameters (reading acuity [RA], critical print size [CPS], and maximum reading speed [MRS]) were evaluated with MNREAD acuity charts at 40 cm, and preferred reading distances and spectacle independence for near activities were assessed preoperatively and at the postoperative 1st, 3rd, and 6th months.

RESULTS

At the postoperative 6th month, binocular logMAR UNVA and DCNVA were significantly better in the Symfony group than in the Tecnis + 2.75 group (UNVA: 0.15 ± 0.07 vs. 0.22 ± 0.08, p = 0.046; DCNVA: 0.21 ± 0.05 vs. 0.28 ± 0.07, p = 0.043; respectively). There was no significant difference in reading performance parameters between the groups; however, the Symfony group preferred significantly closer reading distance than the Tecnis + 2.75 group (42.00 ± 4.67 cm; 45.87 ± 5.32 cm, respectively, p = 0.030). At the postoperative 6th month, 14.3% and 26.7% of patients reported that they needed spectacles, rarely or occasionally, for near activities in the Symfony and Tecnis + 2.75 groups, respectively (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

When implanted with mini-monovision, although functional near visual acuity and a high degree of spectacle independence at near distances were achieved with both IOLs, patients implanted with the EDOF IOL preferred closer reading distance than those implanted with the low add diffractive multifocal IOL.

Total Depth of Focus of Five Premium Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the in vitro optical performance of five premium multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), including a single-valued metric that shows the total range of distances where a multifocal IOL generates an acceptable image quality.

METHODS

Through-focus modulation transfer function (MTF) and the image of a United States Air Force target were obtained for a 3-mm pupil and a wavelength of 546 nm in five multifocal IOLs (Tecnis Symfony [Johnson & Johnson], FineVision Micro F [PhysIOL], Acrysof IQ PanOptix [Novartis], and Artis Symbiose Mid and Plus [Cristalens Industrie] multifocal IOLs). Total depth of focus (TDOF) is computed by adding the vergence intervals where the through-focus MTF at 50 cycles/mm is 0.15 or greater.

RESULTS

Due to their different optical designs (bifocal, trifocal, or extended depth of focus), energy is distributed differently between far, intermediate, and near focus for each multifocal IOL. The light distribution of the Symbiose Mid and Plus multifocal IOLs was similar, concentrating the energy into far focus and the intermediate into near focus, but extending the intermediate focus more (Plus) or less (Mid) toward the near focus. TDOFs were: 1.58 diopters [D] (FineVision); 1.71 D (Tecnis Symfony); 1.73 D (Artis Symbiose Plus); 1.74 D (Artis Symbiose Mid); and 1.90 D (Acrysof IQ PanOptix).

CONCLUSIONS

TDOFs were similar between multifocal IOLs with a maximum difference of 0.32 D and mean value of 1.73 D. The combination of the Symbiose Mid and Plus IOLs can theoretically provide a TDOF of 2.90 D in case one is implanted in one eye and the other in the fellow eye. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(9):578-584.].

Prediction of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity From Optical Simulations With Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether the prediction of visual performance based on the modulation transfer function area (MTFa) calculated with optical simulations is better correlated with visual acuity or contrast sensitivity obtained from defocus curves in patients implanted with a trifocal intraocular lens.

METHODS

Biometric eye data from 43 patients were used to create a mean eye model. A trifocal intraocular lens with a power obtained from the mean of the eyes implanted was incorporated into the model and the MTFa was calculated at the 11 defocus planes corresponding the 11 defocus locations measured in clinical practice. Simulations were conducted for pupil diameters of 2.5, 3, 3.5, and 4 mm. The MTFa correlation with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity was evaluated with the mean obtained after stratification of the clinical sample in four groups according to the previous pupil diameters.

RESULTS

A linear model predicted the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity from MTFa with similar accuracy to nonlinear models, with R² approximately 0.50 for visual acuity and approximately 0.42 for contrast sensitivity. A change of -0.01 logMAR and -0.02 logC was produced per unit of MTFa for visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, respectively. The mean difference between the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity obtained from the model and that measured in clinical practice was close to zero, but the bias varied depending on the defocus lens used, with higher deviation at -0.50 and -3.00 diopters of defocus.

CONCLUSIONS

The MTFa obtained from optical simulations can be used to predict the mean visual acuity and contrast sensitivity consistently, with contrast sensitivity being more sensitive but with higher bias. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(12):789-795.].

Equivalence of two optical quality metrics to predict the visual acuity of multifocal pseudophakic patients

This article studies the relationship between two metrics, the area under the modulation transfer function (MTFa) and the energy efficiency (EE), and their ability to predict the visual quality of patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). The optical quality of IOLs is assessed in vitro using two metrics, the MTFa and EE. We measured them for three different multifocal IOLs with parabolic phase profile using image formation, through-focus (TF) scanning, three R, G, B wavelengths, and two pupils. We analyzed the correlation between MTFa and EE. In parallel, clinical defocus curves of visual acuity (VA) were measured and averaged from sets of patients implanted with the same IOLs. An excellent linear correlation was found between the MTFa and EE for the considered IOLs, wavelengths and pupils (R² > 0.9). We computed the polychromatic TF-MTFa, TF-EE, and derived mathematical relationships between each metrics and clinical average VA. MTFa and EE proved to be equivalent metrics to characterize the optical quality of the studied multifocal IOLs and also in terms of clinical VA predictability.

Correlation between polychromatic image quality metrics to predict visual acuity in pseudophakic patients

The optical quality of three multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) was measured in vitro using the area under the modulation transfer function (MTFa) and energy efficiency (EE). We evaluated those metrics through-focus (TF) by axially scanning the image space with three wavelengths (R, G, B). High linear correlation between MTFa and EE was found for all cases. Correlations between optical in vitro results (polychromatic TF-MTFa and TF-EE) and clinical visual acuity (VA) defocus curves for the three MIOLs allowed us to derive mathematical expressions. Both metrics proved to be equivalent to predict postoperative VA.

Comparison of visual and optical quality of monofocal versus multifocal intraocular lenses

Objective:

To compare visual quality in patients implanted with Tecnis® monofocal (ZCB00) and multifocal (ZMB00) intraocular lenses taking into account their optical quality measured in vitro with an eye model.

Methods:

In total, 122 patients participated in this study: 44 implanted with monofocal and 78 with multifocal intraocular lenses. Measurements of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were performed. The optical quality of the intraocular lenses was evaluated in three image planes (distance, intermediate and near) using an eye model on a test bench. The metric considered was the area under the curve of the modulation transfer function.

Results:

Optical quality at the far focus of the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 66.97) was considerably better than that with the multifocal lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 32.54). However, no significant differences were observed between groups at the distance-corrected visual acuity. Distance-corrected near vision was better in the multifocal (0.15 ± 0.20 logMAR) than that in the monofocal group (0.43 ± 0.21 logMAR, p < 0.001), which correlated with the better optical quality at near reached by the multifocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 29.11) in comparison with the monofocal intraocular lens (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 5.0). In intermediate vision, visual acuity was 0.28 ± 0.16 logMAR (multifocal) and 0.36 ± 0.14 logMAR (monofocal) with p = 0.014, also in good agreement with the values measured in the optical quality (area under the curve of the modulation transfer function = 10.69 (multifocal) and 8.86 (monofocal)). The contrast sensitivity was similar in almost all frequencies. Pelli–Robson was slightly better in the monofocal (1.73) than in the multifocal group (1.64; p = 0.023).

Conclusion:

Patients implanted with multifocal ZMB00 achieved a distance visual acuity similar to those implanted with monofocal ZCB00, but showed significantly better intermediate and near visual acuity. A correlation was found between intraocular lenses’ optical quality and patients’ visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity was very similar between the multifocal and monofocal groups.

A clinical assessment of visual performance of combining the TECNIS® Symfony Extended Range of Vision IOL (ZXR00) with the +3.25 D TECNIS Multifocal 1-piece IOL (ZLB00) in subjects undergoing bilateral cataract extraction

Purpose

To combine the increased depth of focus of the TECNIS^® Symfony intraocular lens (IOL) with a TECNIS Multifocal (MF) low-add IOL (+3.25) to enable a patient to be less dependent on corrective lenses.

Setting

Clinic in Canada.

Design

Single-center, prospective, open-label.

Materials and methods

Fifty patients were enrolled for bilateral surgery. Patients were implanted with TECNIS Symfony Extended Range of Focus lens in the dominant eye, and TECNIS low-add +3.25 MF IOL in the non-dominant eye. Patients were ≥18 years of age and had best-corrected visual acuity >20/30 in both eyes, pupil size >3.5 mm, and <1.5 D of corneal astigmatism. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, operatively, and postoperatively on Day 1, Day 7, Month 1, and Month 3. Postoperative evaluations at Month 3 were completed by 32 of 50 patients enrolled, and included distance, intermediate and near visual acuity (VA), and subjective outcomes.

Results

Three months postoperatively, binocular results without correction revealed 97% (29/30) of patients had distance VA of 20/20 or better, 97% (29/30) had intermediate VA of 20/25 or better, and 94% (28/30) had near VA of 20/25 or better. At Month 3, the majority of patients reported “none” for visual symptoms of glare (30/30, 100%), halo (29/30, 96.6%), starbursts (29/30), or other – blur (30/30, 100%).

Conclusion

Three months postoperatively, the combination of the increased depth of focus of the TECNIS Symfony IOL with a TECNIS MF low-add (+3.25) IOL may provide excellent uncorrected VA at near, intermediate, and far distances with minimal ocular symptoms.

Visual acuity of pseudophakic patients predicted from in-vitro measurements of intraocular lenses with different design

The optical quality of a set of IOLs (modeling set: one monofocal and two bifocals) was assessed through focus by the area under the modulation transfer function (MTFa) metric and related to the visual acuity (VA) defocus curves of pseudophakic patients implanted with said IOLs. A non-linear relationship between the MTFa and clinical VA was obtained with an asymptotic limit found to be the best VA achievable by the patients. Two mathematical fitting functions between clinical VA and MTFa were derived with high correlation coefficients (R²≥0.85). They were applied to the MTFa obtained from a different set of IOLs with advanced designs (trial set: one extended range of vision -ERV-, one trifocal ERV and one trifocal apodized) to predict VA versus defocus of patients implanted with these IOLs. Differences between the calculated VA and the clinical VA for both fitting models were within the standard deviation of the clinical measurements in the range of -3.00 D to 0.00 D defocus, thus proving the suitability of the MTFa metric to predict clinical VA performance of new IOL designs.