Influence of trifocal intraocular lenses on standard autorefraction and aberrometer-based autorefraction

Nuria Garzón; María García-Montero; Esther López-Artero; Francisco Poyales; César Albarrán-Diego

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.04.017

Influence of trifocal intraocular lenses on standard autorefraction and aberrometer-based autorefraction

J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019 Sep;45(9):1265-1274. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.04.017. Epub 2019 Jul 17.

Authors

Nuria Garzón¹, María García-Montero², Esther López-Artero³, Francisco Poyales³, César Albarrán-Diego⁴

Affiliations

¹ IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain; Optometry and Vision Department, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: ngarzon@ioamadrid.com.
² Optometry and Vision Department, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
³ IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain.
⁴ Optics, Optometry and Vision Science Department, Faculty of Physics, University of Valencia, Spain; Clínica Baviera Castellón, Castellón de la Plana, Spain.

PMID: 31326229
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.04.017

Abstract

Purpose: To study the agreement between manifest refraction and objective refraction measured with two autorefractor models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL).

Setting: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain.

Design: Prospective comparative cohort study.

Methods: An autorefractor keratometer (KR-8800), based on a Scheiner double pinhole, and a 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system (OPD-Scan III), based on the scanning-slit retinoscopy principle, were used to obtain objective refraction readings. In addition, lower-order Zernike coefficients (Z) were used to calculate objective refraction. A set of 7 different results was obtained in power vector notation (spherical equivalent [SE], Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 180 degrees and 90 degrees [J0] and Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 45 degrees and 135 degrees [J45]) for 7 different methods: manifest refraction, autorefraction obtained with the autorefractor keratometer, WF-P (Z-based objective refraction for the photopic pupil), WF-M (Z-based objective refraction for the mesopic pupil), WF-4 (Z-based objective refraction for a 4.0 mm pupil), OPD-C (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under photopic conditions), and OPD-M (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under mesopic conditions).

Results: The study comprised 102 eyes from 51 cataract patients who underwent binocular implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F). All 6 objective methods yielded more negative SE values than manifest refraction (P < .001). As for the astigmatism components (J0 and J45), only autorefraction (P = .003) and OPD-M (P < .001) differed significantly from manifest refraction. The best and worst correlation for the SE component were intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.70 (for WF-M) and ICC = 0.48 (for WF-4).

Conclusion: Objective methods tend to yield more negative sphere values than manifest refraction.

Publication types

Comparative Study

MeSH terms

Aberrometry / instrumentation*
Aged
Corneal Wavefront Aberration / physiopathology*
Female
Humans
Lens Implantation, Intraocular*
Male
Middle Aged
Multifocal Intraocular Lenses*
Phacoemulsification*
Prospective Studies
Pseudophakia / physiopathology*
Refraction, Ocular / physiology*
Visual Acuity / physiology