Search

Purpose: To evaluate changes in angle k after the implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and to assess the postoperative outcomes of patients with different angle k values. Setting: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. Design: Prospective trial. Methods: Sixty-three eyes from 63 patients who had bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (POD F, PhysIOL) were included. Pupil offset was used as the best estimate of angle k and was measured using Pentacam (Oculus) preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively. Postoperative refractive outcomes (sphere, cylinder, and manifest refraction spherical equivalent) and visual outcomes at far, intermediate, and near distance were assessed and compared between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. Quality of vision was assessed using a subjective questionnaire. Results: There was a significant decrease in pupil offset values postoperatively (mean: 0.197 ± 0.12 mm) compared with those preoperatively (mean: 0.239 ± 0.12 mm), with a mean decrease of -0.042 mm (P = .0002). The same significant decrease was found for both right and left eyes, when analyzed separately. No statistically significant difference was found in any of the refractive and visual acuity outcomes between eyes with small pupil offset and eyes with large pupil offset. The majority of patients (14 of 16) complaining of significant halos had eyes with small pupil offset. Conclusions: Large pupil offset did not negatively affect visual and refractive outcomes. The tolerance to larger pupil offsetmight be due to the IOL optical design, with the first diffractive ring being larger than other commonly used multifocal IOLs. More studies comparing various diffractive IOL models would be useful to confirm such hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To study the agreement between manifest refraction and objective refraction measured with two autorefractor models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. Prospective comparative cohort study. An autorefractor keratometer (KR-8800), based on a Scheiner double pinhole, and a 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system (OPD-Scan III), based on the scanning-slit retinoscopy principle, were used to obtain objective refraction readings. In addition, lower-order Zernike coefficients (Z) were used to calculate objective refraction. A set of 7 different results was obtained in power vector notation (spherical equivalent [SE], Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 180 degrees and 90 degrees [J0] and Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 45 degrees and 135 degrees [J45]) for 7 different methods: manifest refraction, autorefraction obtained with the autorefractor keratometer, WF-P (Z-based objective refraction for the photopic pupil), WF-M (Z-based objective refraction for the mesopic pupil), WF-4 (Z-based objective refraction for a 4.0 mm pupil), OPD-C (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under photopic conditions), and OPD-M (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under mesopic conditions). The study comprised 102 eyes from 51 cataract patients who underwent binocular implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F). All 6 objective methods yielded more negative SE values than manifest refraction (P <.001). As for the astigmatism components (J0 and J45), only autorefraction (P =.003) and OPD-M (P <.001) differed significantly from manifest refraction. The best and worst correlation for the SE component were intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.70 (for WF-M) and ICC = 0.48 (for WF-4). Objective methods tend to yield more negative sphere values than manifest refraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To review binocular and accommodative disorders documented after corneal or intraocular refractive surgery, in normal healthy prepresbyopic patients. A bibliographic revision was performed; it included works published before 1st July 2017 where accommodation and/or binocularity was assessed following any type of refractive surgical procedure. The search in Pubmed yielded 1273 papers, 95 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Few publications reporting binocular vision and/or accommodative changes after refractive surgery in normal subjects were found. The reduction in fusional vergence is the most frequently reported alteration. Anisometropia is an important risk factor for postoperative binocular vision‐related complaints. Most diplopia‐related visual complaints, irrespective of the surgical procedure, were in fact misdiagnosed preoperative disorders. The preoperative evaluation of patients seeking spectacle/contact lens independence should include a complete binocular and accommodation assessment where parameters such as the phoric posture, accommodative amplitude and facility, near point of convergence, fusional reserves and accommodative convergence/accommodation coefficient are measured. This would allow the identification of risk factors that could compromise the success of the refractive surgery and cause clinical symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]