Influence of trifocal intraocular lenses on standard autorefraction and aberrometer-based autorefraction

Garzón, Nuria; García-Montero, María; López-Artero, Esther; Poyales, Francisco; Albarrán-Diego, César

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.04.017

Cited by 18 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, autorefraction has been shown to provide only a nominally more minus refraction relative to subjective methods. 16 In conclusion, the current study demonstrates that both the non-toric and toric versions of the trifocal IOL evaluated here provide excellent functional vision to patients, with good distance, intermediate and near uncorrected VA, a wide range of vision and good contrast sensitivity. We believe this is the largest study of clinical outcomes for this particular trifocal lens that has been reported to date.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

<p>Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Large Population</p>

Carreño¹,

Carreño²,

Carreño³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To review refractive, visual acuity, defocus curve and contrast sensitivity results after bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in a large population. Setting: One site in Santiago, Chile. Design: Single arm, non-randomized retrospective chart review. Methods: This was a single-arm retrospective chart review of clinical outcomes after bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL (Panoptix ®), both toric and non-toric versions. Binocular visual acuity at 4 m, 60 cm and 40 cm was tested. Other tests included refraction, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity, and defocus curve measurement. Results: The review included 500 eyes of 250 patients implanted with the trifocal IOL and 200 eyes of 100 patients implanted with the trifocal toric IOL, with no clinically significant differences between groups. Ninety-six percent of all eyes were within 0.50D of the intended spherical equivalent correction. In the toric group, 94% of eyes (187/200) had a residual refractive cylinder ≤0.50D, compared to 81% of eyes (406/500) in the non-toric group. Four out of five patients (80.6%, 282/350) had a binocular uncorrected VA of 0.1 logMAR (20/25) at all test distances. Mean defocus was 0.1 logMAR or better from vergences from 0.00 to −3.00 D (corresponding to vision from distance to about 33 cm). With a cutoff of 0.2 logMAR, 96% of patients had a range of vision 2.5 D or greater. Contrast sensitivity was similar between the toric and non-toric lenses, and similar to age-matched normal results. Conclusion: The non-toric and toric trifocal IOLs provided good distance, intermediate and near vision to patients, with a wide range of vision and good contrast sensitivity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

<p>Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Large Population</p>

Carreño¹,

Carreño²,

Carreño³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is interesting to note that similar to this study, Garzón et al found that overall AR values had a trend to slightly more negative values, specially for the SE (M). Besides the fact that Garzón et al 17 did not include astigmatic patients, it should be also mentioned that the spherical trifocal lens analyzed in their study has a different optical design and direct comparisons should be made with caution. At the same time, other authors have studied the validity of devices for analyzing ocular parameters (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Garzón et al 17 have recently analyzed the influence of a trifocal IOL on AR methods. It is interesting to note that similar to this study, Garzón et al found that overall AR values had a trend to slightly more negative values, specially for the SE (M).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, direct comparisons to other outcomes cannot be made. Garzón et al 17 also evaluated the accuracy of different devices on AR with trifocal IOLs. A strong and/or unique evidence for a myopic shift on AR with multifocal IOLs remains elusive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The calculation of the required sample size was based on a difference of 0.25 D, which was assumed to be clinically significant, and a standard deviation (SD) of 0.41 D based on the previous study. 17 Based on this assumptions, and α of 0.05 and power of 0.8, it was calculated that 41 eyes were required in each group.…”

Section: Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Automated refraction after trifocal and trifocal toric intraocular lens implantation

Rementería-Capelo

García-Pérez

Contreras

et al. 2020

European Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To analyze the correlation between automated refraction and manifest refraction after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens or its toric version. Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 105 eyes of 105 patients. Subjects were divided in two groups: 62 with trifocal (AcrySof PanOptix) and 43 with trifocal toric (AcrySof PanOptix Toric) intraocular lenses. Automated refraction was employed as starting point for obtaining the manifest refraction. Automated refraction and manifest refraction measurements were analyzed and compared using the vector analysis 3 months after the surgery. Results: In both groups, the higher differences between automated refraction and manifest refraction measurements were found for the cylinder and the spherical equivalent (M). Cylinder values for PanOptix were: −0.60 ± 0.36 D with automated refraction and −0.17 ± 38 D with manifest refraction ( p < 0.001); for PanOptix Toric, the values were: −0.49 ± 0.31 D with automated refraction and −0.05 ± 0.21 D with manifest refraction ( p < 0.001). M values for PanOptix were: −0.23 ± 0.31 D with automated refraction and −0.03 ± 0.16 D with manifest refraction ( p < 0.001); for PanOptix Toric, the values were: −0.13 ± 0.40 D with automated refraction and 0.01 ± 0.12 D with manifest refraction ( p < 0.001). For the PanOptix group, intraclass correlation coefficients were: 0.51 (sphere), 0.64 (cylinder), 0.42 (M), 0.62 (J0), and 0.37 (J45). For the PanOptix Toric group, the intraclass correlation coefficients were: 0.39 (sphere), 0.61 (cylinder), 0.39 (M), 0.53 (J0), and 0.09 (J45). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that patients implanted with the trifocal and the trifocal toric intraocular lens under study showed similar automated refraction results between them, with a slight trend to more negative amounts of cylinder and M. Nevertheless, clinicians should carefully confirm all parameters of the refraction with manifest refraction.

show abstract

Visual and optical quality of enhanced intermediate monofocal versus standard monofocal intraocular lens

Garzón

Poyales²,

Albarrán-Diego

et al. 2022

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Intraocular lens designs are constantly evolving, trying to obtain more spectacle independence after cataract surgery. This advantage can be linked to some disadvantages, such as optical quality decrease. For that reason, it is important to assess, not only the amount of vision provided but also the quality of vision once they are implanted. The purpose of the present work was to compare the visual performance between two monofocal intraocular models: a standard model and a monofocal with enhanced intermediate vision lens. Methods Prospective, randomized, comparative study. Sixty adult subjects scheduled to undergo bilateral cataract surgery and IOL implantation were randomized to receive one of the two IOLs in both eyes at Miranza IOA, Madrid, Spain (group A: monofocal with enhanced intermediate vision lens and group B: standard monofocal lens). Monocular outcomes (right eyes) determined 1 and 3 months postoperatively were photopic corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), perceived halo, corrected intermediate-distance contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations. The impact of the new IOL in the postoperative management with autorefraction devices was also evaluated. Results No differences were found in CDVA between the two groups. Significant differences were detected between the two lenses evaluated in both total HOA (p = 0.028) and internal HOA (p = 0.037). Contrast sensitivity and halometry results obtained at 1 month were similar across the two IOL groups. Conclusion In patients undergoing cataract surgery, monofocal with enhanced intermediate vision IOL offered similar distance performance and contrast sensitivity along with perceived HOA and halos compared with the standard monofocal IOLs tested.

show abstract

Influence of trifocal intraocular lenses on standard autorefraction and aberrometer-based autorefraction

Abstract: 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).

Cited by 18 publications

References 29 publications

<p>Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Large Population</p>

<p>Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Large Population</p>

Automated refraction after trifocal and trifocal toric intraocular lens implantation

Visual and optical quality of enhanced intermediate monofocal versus standard monofocal intraocular lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About