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.

Purpose: To evaluate the refractive predictability obtained with an extended range of vision intraocular lens in eyes with previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis, confirming which intraocular lens power formula provides the most accurate calculation. Methods: The study enrolled 71 eyes with previous successful myopic laser in situ keratomileusis surgery of 43 patients undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the extended range of vision intraocular lens TECNIS Symfony (Johnson and Johnson Vision). Intraocular lens power was calculated using all American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons formulas, and their average value was selected for implantation. Refractive outcomes were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively. Results: Postoperative spherical equivalent within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D was found in 61.6% and 86.3% of eyes, respectively. In eyes with pre-laser in situ keratomileusis data available, no significant correlation was found between pre-laser in situ keratomileusis spherical equivalent and post-cataract surgery spherical equivalent (r = 0.237, p = 0.114). A postoperative spherical equivalent within ±0.50 D was found in 65.2% and 55.6% of eyes in the subgroups with and without pre-laser in situ keratomileusis data available, respectively (p = 0.480). Statistically significantly higher differences between the intraocular lens power implanted and the calculation provided by the Potvin–Hill (p = 0.028) and Barrett True K No History formulas (p = 0.022) were found in those eyes with postoperative spherical equivalent > 0.50 D. Conclusion: The extended range of vision intraocular lens evaluated can provide a predictable refractive correction in eyes with previous laser in situ keratomileusis surgery. The Potvin–Hill and Barrett True K No History are the most adequate formulas to perform intraocular lens power calculations in these cases.

No abstract

Purpose To assess the depth of field (DOF) by means of defocus curve analysis applying different visual acuity criteria in patients following cataract surgery and bilateral implantation of a new trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). Methods Fifty eyes of 25 consecutive patients who underwent implantation of the Asqelio™ trifocal IOL (AST Products Inc., USA) were enrolled in this observational prospective study. Monocular subjective DOF was obtained from defocus curves with absolute and relative criteria of tolerance for different visual acuities values. Patient’s visual satisfaction, postoperative refraction and visual acuity at far, intermediate (67 cm) and near (40 cm) distances were also measured at 1 and 3-months post-surgery. Analysis of variance was used to assess differences in refractive error after the surgical procedure, and paired t-tests were used to assess differences in VA. Patient satisfaction results were reported as percentages. Results Spherical equivalent was 0.05 ± 0.23 D and residual cylinder 0.01 ± 0.23 D 3-months after the surgery. Absolute DOF obtained was 3.29 ± 0.91 D considering 0.1 LogMAR as cut-off value, and 4.82 ± 0.69 D when 0.3 logMAR as cutoff value. Relative DOF considering a drop of 0.1 logMAR from maximum visual acuity was 2.57 ± 0.82 D, and 1.27 ± 0.70 D when a drop of 0.04 logMAR was considered. Visual acuities obtained 3-months after the surgery were 0.03 ± 0.13, − 0.05 ± 0.06, 0.03 ± 0.08 and 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR for uncorrected and best-corrected for distance, and best distance-corrected for intermediate and near distances, respectively. Average response to visual satisfaction queries was 8.24/10 at distance, 8.04/10 at intermediate, and 7.88/10 at near. Conclusions Patients implanted with this trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in visual acuity at different distances providing wide absolute and relative DOF values. The outcomes demonstrate that this lens is predictable yielding good patient satisfaction rates.

MIOL can present a refractive or diffractive optics design [3]. Diffractive MIOL are characterized by optical platforms with a multitude of concentric rings with a specifi c separation and height which results in steps that favor and cause the diffraction of the wave front, which allows to focus at different distances [4].