Francisco de Asís Bartol-Puyal1,2,3, Galadriel Giménez4,5,6, Silvia Méndez-Martínez4,5,6, Irene Altemir4,5,6, José Manuel Larrosa4,5,6, Vicente Polo4,5,6, Luis Pablo4,5,6,7. 1. Ophthalmology Department, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain. fabartol@salud.aragon.es. 2. Miguel Servet Ophthalmology Research Group (GIMSO), Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain. fabartol@salud.aragon.es. 3. University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. fabartol@salud.aragon.es. 4. Ophthalmology Department, Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain. 5. Miguel Servet Ophthalmology Research Group (GIMSO), Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS Aragón), Zaragoza, Spain. 6. University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. 7. Biotech Vision SLP, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual quality between subjective tests and optical devices using near-infrared (NIR) light in patients implanted with monofocal, multifocal and enlarged depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Cross-sectional study enrolling patients aged between 55 and 75 (axial length between 22 and 25 mm) bilaterally implanted with Tecnis IOLs (Johnson & Johnson) four months previously: 40 patients (80 eyes) with monofocal ZCB00, 41 patients (82 eyes) with bifocal diffractive ZMB00 and 48 patients (96 eyes) with EDoF Symfony. They were examined using subjective and objective tests. The subjective tests comprised visual acuity (VA) with ETDRS charts, contrast sensitivity (CS) with Pelli-Robson and CSV-1000E tests, and clear vision range (CVR). The objective tests using NIR light were performed with the KR-1 W wavefront analyzer and the OQAS. RESULTS: In the subjective tests, the monofocal group achieved the best outcomes in some of the VA and CS sections, while the bifocal group obtained the worst outcomes in some of the CS sections. In the objective tests, the bifocal group achieved the best results for VA and CS. Discrepancies between pseudoaccommodation range and CVR were found in the bifocal and EDoF groups. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of visual quality using NIR light implies greater bias for diffractive lenses than for EDoF lenses. This bias may be even greater with devices using longer light wavelengths or Hartmann-Shack technology. The difference in wavelength between NIR and visible light leads to dimming of near-vision focus and magnification of distance focus.
PURPOSE: To compare visual quality between subjective tests and optical devices using near-infrared (NIR) light in patients implanted with monofocal, multifocal and enlarged depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: Cross-sectional study enrolling patients aged between 55 and 75 (axial length between 22 and 25 mm) bilaterally implanted with Tecnis IOLs (Johnson & Johnson) four months previously: 40 patients (80 eyes) with monofocal ZCB00, 41 patients (82 eyes) with bifocal diffractive ZMB00 and 48 patients (96 eyes) with EDoF Symfony. They were examined using subjective and objective tests. The subjective tests comprised visual acuity (VA) with ETDRS charts, contrast sensitivity (CS) with Pelli-Robson and CSV-1000E tests, and clear vision range (CVR). The objective tests using NIR light were performed with the KR-1 W wavefront analyzer and the OQAS. RESULTS: In the subjective tests, the monofocal group achieved the best outcomes in some of the VA and CS sections, while the bifocal group obtained the worst outcomes in some of the CS sections. In the objective tests, the bifocal group achieved the best results for VA and CS. Discrepancies between pseudoaccommodation range and CVR were found in the bifocal and EDoF groups. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of visual quality using NIR light implies greater bias for diffractive lenses than for EDoF lenses. This bias may be even greater with devices using longer light wavelengths or Hartmann-Shack technology. The difference in wavelength between NIR and visible light leads to dimming of near-vision focus and magnification of distance focus.
Authors: Jose Juan Esteve-Taboada; Alberto Domínguez-Vicent; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: José F Alfonso; Luis Fernández-Vega; M Begoña Baamonde; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Jorge L Alio; Ana B Plaza-Puche; Roberto Férnandez-Buenaga; Joseph Pikkel; Miguel Maldonado Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 6.048