Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration in Patients Implanted With Trifocal Diffractive Hydrophobic IOLs

Abstract

PURPOSE:To measure the in vivo longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA) from the chromatic difference of focus (480 to 700 nm) using psychophysical methods in patients bilaterally implanted with a hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS:Psychophysical best focus was measured in both eyes at different wavelengths (480 to 700 nm) and at three different viewing distances (0.00, +1.75, and +3.50 diopters [D]) using a custom-developed polychromatic adaptive optics set-up provided with a supercontinuum laser, a Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor, a deformable mirror, a motorized Badal system, a pupil monitoring system, and a psychophysical channel with monochromatically illuminated stimuli. Measurements were performed on 10 patients (20 eyes) bilaterally implanted with hydrophobic trifocal diffractive IOLs (FineVisionHP POD F GF; PhysIOL). LCA was com-puted from the chromatic difference of focus curves as the difference between 480 and 700 nm at near, intermediate, and far. RESULTS:The LCA from psychophysical measurements was significantly higher for far vision (0.99 ± 0.06 diopters [D]), than for intermediate (0.67 ± 0.10 D) and near (0.23 ± 0.08 D) vision (one-way analysis of variance, P < .05).CONCLUSIONS: LCA for far vision was significantly higher than for intermediate and near vision in hydrophobic trifocal diffractive IOLs, in agreement with a previous study with the same optical design but hydrophilic material IOLs. The LCA for the hydrophobic IOL is slightly higher than for the hydrophilic IOL at far. Different combinations of refractive and diffractive LCA will allow optimizing IOL designs to improve polychromatic image quality.

Spectral Effects and Range of Focus in a Multizonal-Refractive Intraocular Lens Compared with a Standard Trifocal Diffractive Design

“…Following phacoemulsification and IOL implantation, the amount of chromatic aberration is reduced compared to a phakic eye [ 18 ], which shows variability between IOL models. One differentiating factor is the spectral dispersion of biomaterials, which show varying levels of wavelength dependency for their refractive indices [ 19 ]. Another important factor is lens design, as the effects of chromatic aberration can be corrected through the diffractive principle [ 15 , 20 ].…”

Impact of Lens Material on Objective Refraction in Eyes with Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses

“…This behaviour is the key for chromatic aberration correction solutions combining refractive and diffractive elements. Given that POD F and POD F-GF have the same diffractive pattern but different material with different Abbe number , a different chromatic aberration behaviour can be expected 37,38 . Since AR works with infrared light to not stimulate accommodation, different AR reliability could be expected for POD F and POD F-GF.…”

Long Term Clinical Outcomes of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Versions of a Trifocal IOL with the Same Optical Design

“…Garzón et al 9 compared the refractive outcomes in eyes implanted with one of the two IOL models (48 with the POD F GF IOL and 49 with the POD F IOL) at 1-month post-surgery, using subjective and objective methods. Both models have the same optical design but use distinct materials, with different Abbe numbers, which may change the behavior of the chromatic aberration 17 , 18 and therefore the outcomes found using objective methods such as autorefractometers or wavefront aberrometers. They concluded that none of the objective methods were as reliable as subjective refraction, irrespective of the lens material, but the POD F GF objective values seem to differ less with subjective refraction than the POD F objective values.…”