Innovatec (Spain)

While multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) are increasingly implanted to correct for presbyopia, how one sees with a multifocal correction is hard to explain and imagine. The current study evaluates the quality of various visual simulating technologies by comparing vision with simulated MIOLs pre-operatively and the implanted MIOLs post-operatively in the same patients. Two simulation platforms were used: (1) a custom-developed adaptiveoptics (AO) system, with two visual simulator devices: a spatial light modulator (SLM) and an optotunable lens operating under temporal multiplexing (SimVis); and (2) a wearable, binocular, large field of view SimVis2Eyes clinical simulator (SimVis Gekko, 2Eyes Vision, Madrid, Spain). All devices were programmed to simulate a trifocal diffractive MIOL (POD F, FineVision, PhysIOL). Eight patients were measured pre-operatively simulating the trifocal lens and post-operatively with implantation of the same MIOL. Through-focus decimal visual acuity (TF VA) was measured (1) monocularly in monochromatic light using a four-alternative-forced-choice procedure in the AO system; and (2) binocularly using a clinical optotype in white light. Visual simulations pre-operatively predict well the TF VA performance found post-operatively in patients implanted with the real IOL. The average RMS difference between TF curves with the different visual simulators was 0.05 ± 0.01. The average RMS difference between the TF VA curves with the SimVis pre-operatively and the real MIOL post-operatively was 0.06 ± 0.01 in both platforms, and it was higher in cataract eyes (0.08 ± 0.01, on average across simulators) than in eyes with clear lens. In either group the shape of the TF curves is similar across simulators and pre- and post-operatively. TF curves cross-correlated significantly between simulators (lag k = 0, rho = 0.889), as well as with results with the real MIOL implanted (lag k = 0, rho = 0.853). Visual simulations are useful programmable tools to predict visual performance with MIOLs, both in an AO environment and in a clinical simulator. Pre-operative visual simulations and post-operative data are in good agreement.

ABSTRACTPurpose: To examine and assess the halos generated in distance vision by multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) using both in vitro objective and in vivo subjective methods.Setting: The objective method was carried out in the optics laboratory of the Applied Optics and Image Processing Group (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya -Barcelona). The psychophysical and subjective methods were carried out in the Instituto de Oftalmología Avanzada Madrid Innova Ocular.Design: Optical bench results and prospective evaluation of consecutive cases.Methods: The IOLs examined were TECNIS®one-piece bifocals with addition powers of +4.00 D, +3.25 D, and +2.75 D and the trifocals AT-LISA-tri® and FineVision®. In the objective assessment, we examined halos around the far focus images of a pinhole formed by each IOL in an optical bench. For the in vivo study, we recruited 100 patients who had been bilaterally implanted one month earlier with the IOLs under study. Participants were subjected to psychophysical halometry (Halo v1.0) on the eye with better, distance-corrected, visual acuity and were required to subjectively grade halos by responding to the question “How much do halos bother you?”Results: The objective method revealed that the halo size increased with addition power and that the two trifocals gave rise to a double-halo pattern. Scores in the halometry also indicated a direct relationship between the halo size and addition power. The subjective results indicated fewer complaints about halos associated with the trifocal than bifocal IOLs.Conclusions: The addition power of the tested IOLs affected both laboratory-measured and patient-perceived halos. Trifocal lenses generated fewer complaints about halos.Precise: Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) give rise to halos observed by patients under conditions of dim lighting. This study compares laboratory characterized halos generated by five MIOLs with patient-perceived halos.

To compare visual outcomes, rotational stability, and centration in a randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing cataract surgery who were bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with a similar optical zone but different haptic shape. Twenty-one patients (42 eyes) with cataract and less than 1.50 D of corneal astigmatism underwent implantation of one FineVision/MicoF IOL in one eye and one POD FineVision IOL in the contralateral eye (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) at IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. IOL allocation was random. Outcome measures, all evaluated 3 months postoperatively, included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA), and near (DCNVA) visual acuity (at 80, 40, and 25 cm) under photopic conditions, refraction, IOL centration, haptic rotation, dysphotopsia, objective quality of vision and aberration quantification, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence. Three months postoperatively, mean monocular UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA (40 cm) under photopic conditions were 0.04 ± 0.07, 0.01 ± 0.04, 0.15 ± 0.11, and 0.16 ± 0.08 logMAR for the eyes implanted with the POD FineVision IOL and 0.03 ± 0.05, 0.01 ± 0.02, 0.17 ± 0.12, and 0.14 ± 0.08 logMAR for those receiving the FineVision/MicroF IOL. Moreover, the POD FineVision IOL showed similar centration (P> .05) and better rotational stability (P < .05) than the FineVision/MicroF IOL. Regarding halos, there was a minimal but statistically significant difference, obtaining better results with FineVision/MicroF. Full spectacle independence was reported by all patients. This study revealed similar visual outcomes for both trifocal IOLs under test (POD FineVision and FineVision/MicroF). However, the POD FineVision IOL showed better rotational stability, as afforded by its design. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(6):394-402.].