Search

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the objective refractions obtained by autorefraction and aberrometry under different lighting conditions with an isofocal intraocular lens (Isopure, BVI medical, Liége, Belgium) compared to a monofocal control lens (Micropure, BVI medical, Liége, Belgium) with the same platform and material. Methods: Prospective, comparative and randomized study on patients undergoing cataract surgery and bilateral isofocal or monofocal IOL implantation. A total of 44 subjects were randomly assigned to either the isofocal group (n = 22) or the Micropure (n = 22). Manifest refraction (MR) was always performed under the same lighting conditions for all the patients. For objective refraction the autorefractor KR8800 and the aberrometer OPD-Scan III (Nidek Inc., Tokyo, Japan.) were used. For each eye included in the study, six result sets were collected: MR, AR (autorefraction measured with the autorefractor), WF-P and WF-M (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, photopic and mesopic pupil size), OPD-C and OPD-M (autorefraction measured with the aberrometer in photopic and mesopic conditions). Results: The mean sphere for MR was 0.03 ± 0.32D for the Isopure group and 0.24 ± 0.22D for the monofocal group (p = 0.013). For the Isopure group, Friedman analysis showed statistically significant differences for sphere measured with WF-P (p = 0.035), WF-M (p = 0.018) and OPD-M (p = 0.000), and SE measured with OPD-M (p = 0.004). In the Micropure lens group, the Friedman analysis showed differences for all values studied (p < 0.05). Correlation coefficients showed that AR is the objective method with the strongest correlation values for all components of refraction for both groups. Conclusion: The modification of the surfaces of the isofocal lens does not have a negative impact on the refraction obtained by AR compared to a standard monofocal intraocular lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compare subjective (Rx) and objective (ObjRx) refractions outcomes with two autorefractors models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a hydrophobic trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F GF, Physiol, Liége, Belgium) and a hydrophilic one (FineVision POD F, Physiol, Liége, Belgium). Prospective comparative cohort study, with 100 subjects randomly assigned to either the POD F group (n = 50) or the POD F-GF group (n = 50). Postoperative eye examinations at 1-month visit included seven result sets, one for each assessment method: Rx, AR (automated refraction measured with the autorefractor KR8800), WF-P (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, photopic pupil size), WF-M (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, mesopic pupil size), WF-4 (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, 4 mm pupil), OPD-C (automated refraction measured with the aberrometer OPD in the central pupil/photopic conditions), and OPD-M (automated refraction measured with the aberrometer OPD under mesopic conditions). Mean differences between ObjRx and Rx reached statistical significance for sphere and spherical equivalent (M) only with OPD-C in the POD F-GF group. All ObjRx methods showed significant differences with Rx in the POD F group, with some values differing by more than 0.50 D (−0.58 D in M for the WF-P). Bland Altman plots showed better agreement for the astigmatic components, and for sphere and spherical equivalents in both IOL groups measured with AR and OPD-M. None of the objective methods of refraction evaluated in this study were as reliable as the subjective refraction, irrespective of the lens material, but POD F-GF ObjRx seems to differ less with Rx than POD F ObjRx values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes in a prospective trial of cataract surgery patients bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with very similar optical designs but consisting of different IOL materials (hydrophobic and hydrophilic). Patients and Methods: Fifty-one patients (102 eyes) were randomized to receive trifocal IOLs bilaterally – FineVision POD F (hydrophilic) or FineVision POD F GF (hydrophobic) (both PhysIOL, Liége, Belgium). The follow-up period was 3 months. Outcome measurements included uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA), and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), refraction, negative dysphotopsia, optical quality of vision, contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, halometry (discrimination index), and patient-reported outcomes. Results: At the final study visit, mean (SD) values for binocular UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA (80 cm), and DCNVA (40 cm) were − 0.01 (0.06), − 0.04 (0.04), 0.09 (0.10), and 0.10 (0.09) logMAR, respectively, for POD F, and 0.01 (0.08), − 0.03 (0.03), 0.08 (0.1), and 0.13 (0.11) respectively, for POD F GF. Defocus assessments showed a continuous curve with a functional range of visual acuity (≤ 0.15 logMAR) from ∼ 30 cm to infinity in both groups. The discrimination index was > 0.85 for all patients, and both groups showed similar contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. At 3 months, no patient reported negative dysphotopsia, and high satisfaction rates were observed. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between each lens when measured at 1 month and 3 months after implantation. This equally good clinical performance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal lenses allows the surgeon to choose the IOL material based on personal preferences or patients' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]