Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Optical and visual quality assessment of an extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens based on spherical aberration of different sign

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the optical quality and the visual performance of patients implanted with an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

Thirty-eight eyes underwent implantation of the Mini WELL Ready EDOF IOL and were evaluated at 3-months postsurgery. Higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and modular transfer function (MTF) were measured at 3- and 5-mm pupils. Binocular uncorrected-distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected-distance intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and corrected-distance intermediate visual acuity (CDIVA) at 80 cm, and uncorrected-distance near visual acuity (UNVA) and corrected-distance near visual acuity (CDNVA) at 40 cm were obtained. Postoperative refraction, binocular defocus curve, halometry and subjective ad hoc patients’ questionnaire were also evaluated.

Results

HOAs were 0.171 ± 0.046 µm and 0.406 ± 0.137 µm at 3 and 5 mm, respectively. MTFs decreased as the spatial frequency increased being comparable for both pupils. 92.10% of eyes were within ± 1.00D, and the mean postoperative spherical equivalent was − 0.25 ± 0.65D. Mean UDVA, UIVA and UNVA were 0.06 ± 0.12, 0.05 ± 0.10 and 0.26 ± 0.28 logMAR, respectively. Mean CDVA, CDIVA and CDNVA were − 0.01 ± 0.08, 0.06 ± 0.11 and 0.24 ± 0.12 logMAR, respectively. Defocus curve showed a continuous range of vision, especially at intermediate distances. Mean discrimination index was 0.79 ± 0.04. Questionnaire revealed that about 79% of patients reported a high or moderately high satisfaction with the procedure, and about 95% of patients would undergo the same procedure again.

Conclusions

The Mini WELL Ready EDOF IOL provided good optical and visual quality with high level of patient satisfaction and seems to be a valuable option to provide unaided vision at different distances minimizing visual disturbances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Madrid-Costa D, Cerviño A, Ferrer-Blasco T, García-Lázaro S, Montés-Micó R (2010) Visual and optical performance with hybrid multifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Exp Optom 93:426–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. de Vries NE, Nuijts RM (2013) Multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: literature review of benefits and side effects. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:268–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Braga-Mele R, Chang D, Dewey S, Foster G, Henderson BA, Hill W, Hoffman R, Little B, Mamalis N, Oetting T, Serafano D, Talley-Rostov A, Vasavada A, Yoo S, Cataract Clinical Committee ASCRS (2014) Multifocal intraocular lenses: relative indications and contraindications for implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:313–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. de Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V, Ziaei M, Leyland M (2016) Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD003169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shen Z, Lin Y, Zhu Y, Liu X, Yan J, Yao K (2017) Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 7:45337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cao K, Friedman DS, Jin S, Yusufu M, Zhang J, Wang J, Hou S, Zhu G, Wang B, Xiong Y, Li J, Li X, He H, Chai L, Wan XH (2019) Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients: a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Surv Ophthalmol 64:647–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Breyer DRH, Kaymak H, Ax T, Kretz FTA, Auffarth GU, Hagen PR (2017) Multifocal intraocular lenses and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 6:339–349

    Google Scholar 

  8. Akella SS, Juthani VV (2018) Extended depth of focus intraocular lenses for presbyopia. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 29:318–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu J, Dong Y, Wang Y (2019) Efficacy and safety of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 19:198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kohnen T, Suryakumar R (2020) Extended depth-of-focus technology in intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 46:298–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Domínguez-Vicent A, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Monsálvez-Romin D, Montés-Micó R (2016) In vitro optical quality comparison of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses and 1 progressive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:138–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Domínguez-Vicent A, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R (2016) In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254:1387–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bellucci R, Curatolo MC (2017) A new extended depth of focus intraocular lens based on spherical aberration. J Refract Surg 33:389–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Camps VJ, Tolosa A, Piñero DP, de Fez D, Caballero MT, Miret JJ (2017) In vitro aberrometric assessment of a multifocal intraocular lens and two extended depth of focus IOLs. J Ophthalmol 2017:7095734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Łabuz G, Papadatou E, Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU (2018) Longitudinal chromatic aberration and polychromatic image quality metrics of intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 34:832–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Savini G, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Balducci N, Barboni P (2018) Visual performance of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens compared to a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 34:228–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Savini G, Balducci N, Carbonara C, Rossi S, Altieri M, Frugis N, Zappulla E, Bellucci R, Alessio G (2019) Functional assessment of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens. Eye (Lond) 33:404–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Giers BC, Khoramnia R, Varadi D, Wallek H, Son HS, Attia MS, Auffarth GU (2019) Functional results and photic phenomena with new extended-depth-of-focus intraocular Lens. BMC Ophthalmol 19:197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pedrotti E, Chierego C, Talli PM, Selvi F, Galzignato A, Neri E, Barosco G, Montresor A, Rodella A, Marchini G (2020) Extended depth of focus versus monofocal IOLs: objective and subjective visual outcomes. J Refract Surg 36:214–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Castro JJ, Jiménez JR, Ortiz C, Alarcón A, Anera RG (2011) New testing software for quantifying discrimination capacity in subjects with ocular pathologies. J Biomed Opt 16(1):015001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Castro JJ, Ortiz C, Pozo AM, Anera RG, Soler M (2014) A visual test based on a freeware software for quantifying and displaying night-vision disturbances: study in subjects after alcohol consumption. Theor Biol Med Model 11(Suppl 1):S1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carballo-Alvarez J, Vazquez-Molini JM, Sanz-Fernandez JC et al (2015) Visual outcomes after bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmol 15(26):22

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengózar-Vela A, Aramburu A, Ruiz-Santos M (2017) Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27:460–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengózar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos M (2018) A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 28:182–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Song X, Liu X, Wang W, Zhu Y, Qin Z, Lyu D, Shentu X, Xv W, Chen P, Ke Y (2020) Visual outcome and optical quality after implantation of zonal refractive multifocal and extended-range-of-vision IOLs: a prospective comparison. J Cataract Refract Surg 46:540–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liao X, Lin J, Tian J, Wen B, Tan Q, Lan C (2018) Evaluation of optical quality: ocular scattering and aberrations in eyes implanted with diffractive multifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses. Curr Eye Res 43:696–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mencucci R, Cennamo M, Venturi D, Vignapiano R, Favuzza E (2020) Visual outcome, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a new monofocal IOL, enhanced for intermediate vision: preliminary results. J Cataract Refract Surg 46:378–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. He JC, Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Held R (2003) Wave-front aberrations in the anterior corneal surface and the whole eye. J Opt Soc Am A20:1155–1163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bababekova Y, Rosenfield M, Hue JR, Huang RR (2011) Font size and viewing distance of handheld smart phones. Optom Vis Sci 88:795–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kiel AW, Alwitry A (2003) Visual acuity and legal visual requirement to drive a passenger vehicle. Eye 17:579–582

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oftalvist CIO Jerez, Avenida Puerta del Sur S/N, 11408 , Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain

    Ramón Ruiz-Mesa, Julia Blanch-Ruiz & María Ruiz-Santos

  2. University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Robert Montés-Micó

Authors
  1. Ramón Ruiz-Mesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Blanch-Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María Ruiz-Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Montés-Micó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RRM contributed to conception of work, data analysis and interpretation, writing of manuscript. JBR helped in data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation. MRS was involved in data analysis and interpretation. RMM contributed to data analysis and interpretation, writing of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramón Ruiz-Mesa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruiz-Mesa, R., Blanch-Ruiz, J., Ruiz-Santos, M. et al. Optical and visual quality assessment of an extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens based on spherical aberration of different sign. Int Ophthalmol 41, 1019–1032 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01659-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01659-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation