To evaluate depth of field (DOF) provided by different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) designs, comparing the results obtained using different criteria for defining the defocus tolerance. A total of 150 eyes undergoing cataract surgery were enrolled and divided into 6 groups depending on the IOL implanted: AT.LISA Tri (Carl Zeiss Meditec), FineVision (PhysIOL), PanOptix (Alcon Laboratories), Tecnis Symfony (Johnson & Johnson Vision), Miniwell (SIFI MedTech) and Tecnis Synergy (Johnson & Johnson Vision). Subjective DOF was obtained from defocus curves with absolute and relative criteria of tolerance of 0.1 logMAR. Aberrometry was also measured and the visual strehl optical transference function (VSOTF) with percentage of degradation of 90%, 80% and 60% was used to quantify objectively the DOF. Tecnis Symfony, Tecnis Synergy and Panoptix IOL groups showed better subjective and objective DOF compared to the rest of IOL groups, being these differences statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). Comparison between subjective and objective DOF showed that subjective measures were higher for all IOLs, being also these differences statistically significant for all groups (p < 0.001). A moderate significant correlation was found between absolute subjective criteria and VSOTF60% (r = 0.73, p < 0.05). Objective and subjective measures of DOF are not comparable due to differences in methodologies and criterions to define the level of degradation tolerance. Nevertheless, both objective and subjective measures showed a trend to a greater DOF for Tecnis Symfony and Tecnis Synergy IOLs compared to most of trifocal diffractive designs, with the exception of PanOptix.

No abstract

Both diffractive multifocal IOLs improved functional visual capacity at distance and near. Although the visual quality variables were slightly better in Group A than in Group B, the differences were not statistically significant.

Purpose To compare the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK-T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, Ladas Super formula, EVO and Kane). Setting Private university hospital (QuironSalud, Madrid, Spain). Design Retrospective case series Methods Data were compiled from 481 eyes of 481 patients who had undergone uneventful cataract surgery with IOL insertion. Preoperative biometric measurements were made using an IOL Master® 700. Respective ULIB IOL constants ( http://ocusoft.de/ulib/c1.htm ) for each of 4 IOL models implanted were used to calculate the predictive refractive outcome for each formula. This was compared with the actual refractive outcome determined 3 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was mean absolute prediction error (MAE). The study sample was divided according to axial length (AL) into three groups of eyes: short (⩽22.00 mm), normal (22.00–25.00 mm) and long (⩾25.00 mm). Results The Barrett Universal II and Haigis formulas yielded the lowest MAEs over the entire AL range ( p < .01, except EVO) as well as in the long ( p < .01, all formulas) and normal ( p < .01, except Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen and LSF) eyes. In the short eyes, the lower MAEs were provided by Haigis and EVO ( p < .01 except Hoffer Q, SRK/T and Holladay I). Conclusions Barrett Universal II was the most accurate for IOL power calculation in the normal and long eyes. For short eyes, the formulas Haigis and EVO seem best at predicting refractive outcomes.