PURPOSE: To determine the most appropriate analysis technique for the differentiation of multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) designs by using defocus curve assessment of visual capability. METHODS: Four groups of 15 subjects were implanted bilaterally with either monofocal intraocular lenses, refractive MIOLs, diffractive MIOLs, or a combination of refractive and diffractive MIOLs. Defocus curves between -5.0 D and +1.5 D were evaluated by using an absolute and relative depth-of-focus method, the direct comparison method, and a new "area-of-focus" metric. The results were correlated with a subjective perception of near and intermediate vision. RESULTS: Neither depth-of-focus method of analysis was sensitive enough to differentiate between MIOL groups (P > 0.05). The direct comparison method indicated that the refractive MIOL group performed better at +1.00 diopter (D), -1.00 D, and -1.50 D and worse at -3.00 D, -3.50 D, -4.00 D, and -5.00 D than did the diffractive MIOL group (P < 0.05). The area-of-focus intermediate zone was greater with the refractive than with the diffractive MIOL group (P = 0.005) and the near zone was better with the diffractive (P = 0.020) and "mix and match" (P = 0.039) groups than with the refractive MIOL group. The subjective perception of intermediate and near vision agreed best with the area-of-focus metric for the intermediate (r(s) = 0.408, P = 0.010) and near zone (r(s) = 0.484, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional depth-of-focus metrics provide a single value to quantify the useful range of vision; however, they fail to provide sufficient detail to differentiate between MIOL designs. The direct comparison method provides a large amount of information, although the results can be complex to interpret. The proposed area-of-focus metric provides a simple, but differentiating method of evaluating MIOL defocus curves.
PURPOSE: To determine the most appropriate analysis technique for the differentiation of multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) designs by using defocus curve assessment of visual capability. METHODS: Four groups of 15 subjects were implanted bilaterally with either monofocal intraocular lenses, refractive MIOLs, diffractive MIOLs, or a combination of refractive and diffractive MIOLs. Defocus curves between -5.0 D and +1.5 D were evaluated by using an absolute and relative depth-of-focus method, the direct comparison method, and a new "area-of-focus" metric. The results were correlated with a subjective perception of near and intermediate vision. RESULTS: Neither depth-of-focus method of analysis was sensitive enough to differentiate between MIOL groups (P > 0.05). The direct comparison method indicated that the refractive MIOL group performed better at +1.00 diopter (D), -1.00 D, and -1.50 D and worse at -3.00 D, -3.50 D, -4.00 D, and -5.00 D than did the diffractive MIOL group (P < 0.05). The area-of-focus intermediate zone was greater with the refractive than with the diffractive MIOL group (P = 0.005) and the near zone was better with the diffractive (P = 0.020) and "mix and match" (P = 0.039) groups than with the refractive MIOL group. The subjective perception of intermediate and near vision agreed best with the area-of-focus metric for the intermediate (r(s) = 0.408, P = 0.010) and near zone (r(s) = 0.484, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional depth-of-focus metrics provide a single value to quantify the useful range of vision; however, they fail to provide sufficient detail to differentiate between MIOL designs. The direct comparison method provides a large amount of information, although the results can be complex to interpret. The proposed area-of-focus metric provides a simple, but differentiating method of evaluating MIOL defocus curves.
Authors: Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-González; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Jorge L Alió; Pilar Yébana; Mario Cantó; Ana B Plaza; Alfredo Vega; Jorge L Alió Del Barrio; Francisco Lugo Journal: Eye Vis (Lond) Date: 2020-07-18
Authors: Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-Gonzalez; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.379