Effect of Spherical Equivalent Error on Visual Acuity at Various Distances in Eyes With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Hayashi, Ken; T, Sato; Igarashi, Chizuka; Yoshida, Motoaki

doi:10.3928/1081597x-20190404-01

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies with earlier formulas recommended targeting myopic due to hyperopic refractive surprise when calculating IOL power in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery [27][28][29][30][31] . Recent studies have reported that it is good to make the postoperative MR close to emmetropia in eyes having general corneal curvature, and the same results were reported for eyes which have undergone corneal refractive surgery 32,33 . However, targeting slightly myopic may improve near vision without compromising distant vision, especially in high myopic patients, which is the case in the real world practice.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Factors Affecting Prediction Error after Cataract Surgery with Implantation of Various Multifocal IOLs in Patients with Previous Refractive Laser Surgery

Yoo

Kang

Park

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of implantation of various multifocal intraocular lenses (mIOLs) and the prediction accuracy of two intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for eyes that underwent previous corneal refractive surgery. Four types of mIOLs (TECNIS Symfony (Group I), AcrySof IQ PanOptix (Group II), LENTIS Mplus (Group III), and TECNIS mIOL (Group IV)) were used and the IOL power was calculated with the two no-history methods, Shammas-PL and Barrett True-K. Visual acuity and refractive outcomes including manifest refraction, prediction error (PE), absolute error (AE), and median absolute error (MedAE) were evaluated at three months after the cataract surgery. For all groups the Barrett True-K formula produced a narrower range of PEs and lower MedAE than Shammas-PL. Eyes of lower predictive accuracy (group B, AE > 0.5D) showed weak uncorrected distance visual acuity resulting from myopic refractive error and target refraction when compared to that of higher predictive accuracy (group A, AE ≤ 0.5 D). Targeting emmetropia using the Barrett True-K is recommended in patients undergoing mIOL implantation with prior corneal refractive surgery. Additionally, history of prior large amount of laser ablation seems to be an important factor related to low predictive accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Factors Affecting Prediction Error after Cataract Surgery with Implantation of Various Multifocal IOLs in Patients with Previous Refractive Laser Surgery

Yoo

Kang

Park

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the trifocal IOL has a large VA peak curve at intermediate distances, near VA did not worsen because of myopic shift of the VA curve. 24 The bifocal IOL has a large VA curve at far distance, thus intermediate VA did not worsen markedly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Because the multifocal structure of trifocal IOLs is more complex than that of bifocal IOLs, however, light diffraction into the eye is more intricate with trifocal IOLs. 7,23 Accordingly, the intricate light diffraction with trifocal IOLs tends to worsen the effects of astigmatism on distance VA. Additionally, probably because the VA peak curve at far distance is narrow with trifocal IOLs, 24 the myopic refractive shift due to astigmatism is likely to impair distance VA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The surgeons performed a 2.4mm clear corneal incision or transconjunctival corneoscleral incision according to previously described procedures. 24 A horizontal incision at the 180-degree meridian was made in eyes having against-the-rule and oblique astigmatism, whereas a vertical incision at the 90 8 meridian was made in eyes having with-the-rule astigmatism. First, 2 side ports were made with a 0.6-mm slit knife at approximately 90-degrees to the main incision.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Refractive Astigmatism on All-Distance Visual Acuity in Eyes With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Hayashi

Yoshida

Igarashi

et al. 2021

American Journal of Ophthalmology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the effect of refractive astigmatism on all-distance visual acuity (VA) in eyes implanted with a diffractive trifocal or bifocal intraocular lens (IOL).DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifty eyes with trifocal IOLs (PanOptix; Alcon) and 50 eyes with bifocal IOLs (ReSTOR D3D) were enrolled. After simulating astigmatism by adding cylindrical lenses of 0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.5 diopters (D), the corrected logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) VA was measured using an all-distance vision tester.RESULTS: Mean VAs at most distances significantly worsened in proportion to the added astigmatism (P £ .0111) with no significant differences in near VA at 0.3 m in the trifocal group or in intermediate VA at 0.7 m in the bifocal group. Mean intermediate VA at 0.5 m was significantly better in the trifocal group than in the bifocal group when the astigmatism was 0.75 D or less (P £ .0472), but VA at distances of N and 5.0 m were significantly worse in the trifocal group when the astigmatism was 0.5 D or more (P £ .0457). Useful mean logMAR VA of 0.20 was achieved at all distances when the astigmatism was 0.75 D or less in the trifocal group and 1.0 D or less in the bifocal group.CONCLUSIONS: All-distance VA, particularly distance VA, worsened more in proportion to astigmatism with a trifocal IOL than with a bifocal IOL. Useful VA was achieved when the astigmatism was 0.75 D or less with a trifocal IOL, suggesting that astigmatism correction is necessary when astigmatism is more than 0.75 D.

show abstract

“…Regarding target refraction in eyes with this type of lenses, Hayashi et al published a study suggesting that slight myopia is a better target refraction than slight hyperopia, although emmetropia is the optimum target ( 33 ). In this study, the minus diopter closest to zero was also targeted, and the postoperative spherical equivalent to it was compared, in order to obtain the RPE for each formula.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II were compared in prediction of postoperative refraction for multifocal and implants using a single optical biometry device. The authors included 88 refractive lens exchange and cataract surgeries, with AcrySof IQ PanOptix implant (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). All eyes were divided into three groups based on axial length (AL), group 1: <22 mm (14 eyes), group 2: 22-24.5 mm (68 eyes) and group 3: >24.5 mm (6 eyes). The refractive prediction error (RPE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated for 5 different formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II. For eyes with the AL between 22 mm and 24.5 mm the greatest percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.25 D was 32.4% for Haigis formula, followed by Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 with 29.4%. The percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.50 D was 100% only for Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1, 94.1% for SRK/T and 91.2% for Haigis and Hoffer Q. The first and third group with AL <22 and >24.5 mm were too small to have statistical significance due to the reluctancy to use multifocal IOLs on extreme ALs. ANOVA test showed no statistical difference (P=0.166) between the RPEs measured for each formula in this cohort. This study showed no statistical difference between formulas for this trifocal lens implant. There was a tendency for the RPE to be within ±0.25 D for most of the eyes with the Haigis formula, and within ±0.50 D for all the eyes with the Barrett Universal II formula in the group with the AL between 22 and 24.5 mm.

show abstract

Effect of Spherical Equivalent Error on Visual Acuity at Various Distances in Eyes With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Cited by 16 publications

References 17 publications

Factors Affecting Prediction Error after Cataract Surgery with Implantation of Various Multifocal IOLs in Patients with Previous Refractive Laser Surgery

Factors Affecting Prediction Error after Cataract Surgery with Implantation of Various Multifocal IOLs in Patients with Previous Refractive Laser Surgery

Effect of Refractive Astigmatism on All-Distance Visual Acuity in Eyes With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About