Extended depth of focus spectacles for full visual field presbyopia correction via brain adaptation

A. Zlotnik; S. Ben Yaish; O. Yehezkel; M. Belkin; Z. Zalevsky

doi:10.1167/10.7.1383

Non-toric extended depth of focus contact lenses for astigmatism and presbyopia correction

10.1117/12.846262 ◽

2010 ◽

Author(s):

Shai Ben Yaish ◽

Alex Zlotnik ◽

Oren Yehezkel ◽

Karen Lahav-Yacouel ◽

Michael Belkin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Contact Lenses ◽

Depth Of Focus ◽

Extended Depth Of Focus ◽

Presbyopia Correction

Download Full-text

In Vitro Aberrometric Assessment of a Multifocal Intraocular Lens and Two Extended Depth of Focus IOLs

Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1155/2017/7095734 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 2017 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Vicente J. Camps ◽

Angel Tolosa ◽

David P. Piñero ◽

Dolores de Fez ◽

María T. Caballero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Lens ◽

Wavefront Sensor ◽

Optical Bench ◽

Depth Of Focus ◽

Multifocal Intraocular Lens ◽

Extended Depth Of Focus ◽

Presbyopia Correction

Purpose. To analyze the “in vitro” aberrometric pattern of a refractive IOL and two extended depth of focus IOLs.Methods. A special optical bench with a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (SH) was designed for the measurement. Three presbyopia correction IOLs were analyzed: Mini WELL (MW), TECNIS Symfony ZXR00 (SYM), and Lentis Mplus X LS-313 MF30 (MP). Three different pupil sizes were used for the comparison: 3, 4, and 4.7 mm.Results. MW generated negative primary and positive secondary spherical aberrations (SA) for the apertures of 3 mm (−0.13 and +0.12 μm), 4 mm (−0.12 and +0.08 μm), and 4.7 mm (−0.11 and +0.08 μm), while the SYM only generated negative primary SA for 4 and 4.7 mm apertures (−0.12 μm and −0.20 μm, resp.). The MP induced coma and trefoil for all pupils and showed significant HOAs for apertures of 4 and 4.7 mm.Conclusions.In an optical bench, the MW induces negative primary and positive secondary SA for all pupils. The SYM aberrations seem to be pupil dependent; it does not produce negative primary SA for 3 mm but increases for higher pupils. Meanwhile, the HOAs for the MW and SYM were not significant. The MP showed in all cases the highest HOAs.

Download Full-text

Influence of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses on visual field sensitivity

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0237728 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (9) ◽

pp. e0237728

Author(s):

Makiko Takahashi ◽

Chiemi Yamashiro ◽

Takuya Yoshimoto ◽

Yuka Kobayashi ◽

Fumiaki Higashijima ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Visual Field ◽

Intraocular Lenses ◽

Depth Of Focus ◽

Extended Depth Of Focus ◽

Field Sensitivity

Download Full-text

Influence of implantations of extended depth-of-focus on standard automated perimetry

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-020-77214-8 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jinhee Lee ◽

Yosai Mori ◽

Ryohei Nejima ◽

Keiichiro Minami ◽

Kazunori Miyata

Keyword(s):

Visual Field ◽

Cataract Surgery ◽

Mean Deviation ◽

Automated Perimetry ◽

Depth Of Focus ◽

Standard Automated Perimetry ◽

Multifocal Iol ◽

Reliability Indices ◽

Extended Depth Of Focus ◽

Foveal Sensitivity

AbstractThis prospective study aimed to investigate the influence of an extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (EDOF IOL) on standard automated perimetry. Ninety eyes of 90 patients who had undergone cataract surgery from February 2018 to December 2018 were included. No patients had any diseases that might affect the visual field. ZMB00 (+ 4.00 D add), ZXR00V (+ 1.75 D add), and ZCB00V (Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) were used as multifocal, EDOF, and monofocal IOLs, respectively. Humphrey Visual Field 10–2 testing was performed 2–3 months after cataract surgery, acceptable reliability indices were measured, and mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), foveal sensitivity and mean sensitivity (MS) were compared. Seventy-one eyes (ZXR00V: 24 eyes, ZMB00: 25 eyes, ZCB00V: 22 eyes) were used for the analyses. The MD and MS of the EDOF and monofocal groups were significantly higher than those of the multifocal group (P < 0.0051). However, the MD and MS of the EDOF and monofocal groups were not different (P > 0.23). The PSD and foveal sensitivity were not different among the groups. In non-glaucomatous patients, the MD and MS of the EDOF IOL were comparable to those of the monofocal IOL and better than those of the multifocal IOL.

Download Full-text

Through-Focus Vision Performance and Light Disturbances of 3 New Intraocular Lenses for Presbyopia Correction

Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.1155/2018/6165493 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Santiago Escandón-García ◽

Filomena J. Ribeiro ◽

Colm McAlinden ◽

António Queirós ◽

José M. González-Méijome

Keyword(s):

Contrast Sensitivity ◽

Case Series ◽

Sensitivity Function ◽

Intraocular Lenses ◽

Clinical Population ◽

Subjective Response ◽

Depth Of Focus ◽

Extended Depth Of Focus ◽

Intermediate Distance ◽

Presbyopia Correction

Purpose. To compare the through-focus visual performance in a clinical population of pseudophakic patients implanted with two new trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and one extended depth of focus IOL. Methods. Prospective, nonrandomized, examiner-masked case series. Twenty-three patients received the FineVision® and seven patients received the PanOptix™ trifocal IOLs. Fifteen patients received the Symfony extended depth of focus IOL. Mean age of patients was 63 ± 8 years. Through-focus visual acuity was measured from –3.00 to +1.00 D vergences. Contrast sensitivity was measured with and without a source of glare. Light disturbances were evaluated with the Light Distortion Analyzer. Results. Though-focus evaluation showed that trifocal IOLs performed significantly better at near distance (33 and 40 cm), and extended depth of focus performed significantly better at intermediate distance (1.0 m). Contrast sensitivity function with glare and dysphotopsia was similar between the three IOLs and subjective response to questionnaire showed a significantly higher score (worse performance) for the extended depth of focus IOL compared to both trifocal IOLs in the bothersome subscale (p<0.05). Conclusions. Trifocal IOLs grant better performance at near distance while extended depth of focus IOL performs better at intermediate distance. Objective dysphotopsia measured with the Light Distortion Analyzer is not reduced in extended depth of focus IOL compared to trifocal IOLs.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOL designs: Diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive, and extended-depth-of-focus.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.736885072.793567258 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Mark Packer

Keyword(s):

Depth Of Focus ◽

Extended Depth Of Focus

Download Full-text

Comparison of trifocal or hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-86222-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yueyang Zhong ◽

Kai Wang ◽

Xiaoning Yu ◽

Xin Liu ◽

Ke Yao

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Visual Acuity ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Visual Quality ◽

Intraocular Lenses ◽

Depth Of Focus ◽

Refractive Lens Exchange ◽

Extended Depth Of Focus ◽

Refractive Lens ◽

Near Visual Acuity

AbstractThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes following implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or a hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL in cataract or refractive lens exchange surgeries. We examined 13 comparative studies with bilateral implantation of trifocal (898 eyes) or hybrid multifocal-EDOF (624 eyes) IOLs published through 1 March 2020. Better uncorrected and corrected near visual acuity (VA) were observed in the trifocal group (MD: − 0.143, 95% CI: − 0.192 to − 0.010, P < 0.001 and MD: − 0.149, 95% CI: − 0.217 to − 0.082, P < 0.001, respectively), while the hybrid multifocal-EDOF group presented better uncorrected intermediate VA (MD: 0.055, 95% CI: 0.016 to 0.093, P = 0.005). Trifocal IOLs were more likely to achieve spectacle independence at near distance (RR: 1.103, 95% CI: 1.036 to 1.152, P = 0.002). The halo photic effect was generated more frequently by the trifocal IOLs (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 1.025 to 1.696, P = 0.031). Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded comparable results between groups. Trifocal IOLs demonstrated better performance at near distance but apparently led to more photic disturbances. Our findings provided the most up-to-date and comprehensive evidence by comparing the benefits of advanced IOLs in clinical practice.

Download Full-text