Impact of lens material on objective refraction in eyes with trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses

Purpose: Compare subjective (Rx) and objective (ObjRx) refractions outcomes with two autorefractors models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a hydrophobic trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F GF, Physiol, Liége, Belgium) and a hydrophilic one (FineVision POD F, Physiol, Liége, Belgium). Methods: P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Garzón Jimenez, Nuria, Poyales, Francisco, García Montero, María, Vega Lerín, Fidel|||0000-0002-8594-0872, Millán Garcia-Varela, M. Sagrario|||0000-0001-6950-2373, Albarrán Diego, César
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2021
País:España
Institución:Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Repositorio:UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/361886
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/2117/361886
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2021.1946563
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Intraocular lenses
Eye -- Accomodation and refraction
Diffraction
Optics
Refraction
Intraocular lens
Trifocal diffractive
Hydrofobic
Hydrofilic
Lents intraoculars
Ulls -- Acomodació i refracció
Difracció
Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Ciències de la visió
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: Compare subjective (Rx) and objective (ObjRx) refractions outcomes with two autorefractors models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a hydrophobic trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F GF, Physiol, Liége, Belgium) and a hydrophilic one (FineVision POD F, Physiol, Liége, Belgium). Methods: Prospective comparative cohort study, with 100 subjects randomly assigned to either the POD F group (n = 50) or the POD F-GF group (n = 50). Postoperative eye examinations at 1-month visit included seven result sets, one for each assessment method: Rx, AR (automated refraction measured with the autorefractor KR8800), WF-P (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, photopic pupil size), WF-M (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, mesopic pupil size), WF-4 (Zernike-coefficients-based objective refraction, 4 mm pupil), OPD-C (automated refraction measured with the aberrometer OPD in the central pupil/photopic conditions), and OPD-M (automated refraction measured with the aberrometer OPD under mesopic conditions). Results: Mean differences between ObjRx and Rx reached statistical significance for sphere and spherical equivalent (M) only with OPD-C in the POD F-GF group. All ObjRx methods showed significant differences with Rx in the POD F group, with some values differing by more than 0.50 D (-0.58 D in M for the WF-P). Bland Altman plots showed better agreement for the astigmatic components, and for sphere and spherical equivalents in both IOL groups measured with AR and OPD-M. Conclusions: None of the objective methods of refraction evaluated in this study were as reliable as the subjective refraction, irrespective of the lens material, but POD F-GF ObjRx seems to differ less with Rx than POD F ObjRx values.