Comparison between clinical results of two diffractive multifocal lenses with the same platform but different additions

PURPOSE: To evaluate visual results with two multifocal diffractive lenses designed with the same platform but with different additions. SETTING: Grupo Innova Ocular clinics. METHODS: A total of 50 eyes from 50 patients were included. Group 1 (n = 25) was implanted with the TECNIS® 1 ZLB +3.25 and group 2 (n = 25) with the TECNIS® 1 ZKB +2.75. Patients were assessed at 24 hours, 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. At surgical discharge, corrected (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), near visual acuity (VA) at 25, 40 and 80 cm, visual quality and the defocus curve were measured. RESULTS: Changes in sphere and spherical equivalent were statistically significant (p<0.01) in both groups at 1 week and 1 month compared to preoperative values. In group 1, UCDVA logMAR at 1 month was 0.06 ± 0.02. In group 2, UCDVA at 1 month was 0.03 ± 0.03. In near vision, the TECNIS® 1 ZLB group obtained a VA logMAR of 0.35 ± 0.02 at 25 cm, 0.13 ± 0.02 at 40 cm and 0.27 ± 0.02 at 80 cm, while in the TECNIS® 1 ZKB group, the values were 0.38  ± 0.03, 0.14 ± 0.03 and 0.23 ± 0.06, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found either when results for visual quality were compared. CONCLUSION: Both the TECNIS® 1 ZLB and TECNIS® 1 ZKB are excellent options for obtaining good distance and near vision, in addition to providing good intermediate vision, especially at distances such as those required for working with computers.

Improved and customized secondary optics for photo-voltaic concentrators

In this contribution the line flow method is applied to an optimized secondary optics in a photovoltaic concentration system where the primary optics is already defined and characterized. This method is a particular application of photic field theory. This method uses the parameterization of a given primary optics, including actual tolerances of the manufacturing process. The design of the secondary optics is constrained by the selection of primary optics and maximizes the concentration at a previously specified collection area. The geometry of the secondary element is calculated by using a virtual source, which sends light in a first concentration step. This allows us to calculate the line flow for this specific case. This concept allows designing more compact and efficient secondary optics of photovoltaic systems.

Disk halo size measured in individuals with monofocal versus diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To compare disk halo size in response to a glare source in eyes with an aspheric apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) or aspheric monofocal IOL. SETTING: Rementeria Ophthalmological Clinic, Madrid, Spain. DESIGN: Prospective randomized masked study. METHOD: Halo radius was measured using a vision monitor (MonCv3) with low-luminance optotypes in eyes that had cataract surgery and bilateral implantion of an Acrysof Restor SN6AD1 multifocal IOL or Acrysof IQ monofocal IOL 6 to 9 months previously. The visual angle subtended by the disk halo radius was calculated in minutes of arc (arcmin). Patient complaints of halo disturbances were recorded. Monocular uncorrected distance visual acutity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were measured using high-contrast (96%) and low-contrast (10%) logMAR letter charts. RESULTS: The study comprised 39 eyes of 39 subjects (aged 70 to 80 years); 21 eyes had a multifocal IOL and 18 eyes a monofocal IOL. The mean halo radius was 35 arcmin larger in the multifocal IOL group than the monofocal group (P<.05). Greater halo effects were reported in the multifocal IOL group (P<.05). The mean monocular high-contrast UDVA and low-contrast UDVA did not vary significantly between groups, whereas the mean monocular high-contrast CDVA and low-contrast CDVA were significantly worse at 0.12 logMAR and 0.13 logMAR in the multifocal than in the monofocal IOL group, respectively (P <.01). A significant positive correlation was detected by multiple linear regression between the halo radius and low-contrast UDVA in the multifocal IOL group (r = 0.72, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive multifocal IOL gave rise to a larger disk halo size, which was correlated with a worse low-contrast UDVA.

Visual outcomes after bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation

Background In recent years new models of intraocular lenses are appearing on the market to reduce requirements for additional optical correction. The purpose of this study is to assess visual outcomes following bilateral cataract surgery and the implant of a FineVision® trifocal intraocular lens (IOL). Methods Prospective, nonrandomized, observational study. Vision was assessed in 44 eyes of 22 patients (mean age 68.4 ± 5.5 years) before and 3 months after surgery. Aberrations were determined using the Topcon KR-1 W wave-front analyzer. LogMAR visual acuity was measured at distance (corrected distance visual acuity, CDVA 4 m), intermediate (distance corrected intermediate visual acuity, DCIVA 60 cm) and near (distance corrected near visual acuity, DCNVA 40 cm). The Pelli-Robson letter chart and the CSV-1000 test were used to estimate contrast sensitivity (CS). Defocus curve testing was performed in photopic and mesopic conditions. Adverse photic phenomena were assessed using the Halo v1.0 program. Results Mean aberration values for a mesopic pupil diameter were: total HOA RMS: 0.41 ± 0.30 μm, coma: 0.32 ± 0.22 μm and spherical aberration: 0.21 ± 0.20 μm. Binocular logMAR measurements were: CDVA −0.05 ± 0.05, DCIVA 0.15 ± 0.10, and DCNVA 0.06 ± 0.10. Mean Pelli-Robson CS was 1.40 ± 0.14 log units. Mean CSV100 CS for the 4 frequencies examined (A: 3 cycles/degree (cpd), B: 6 cpd, C: 12 cpd, D: 18 cpd) were 1.64 ± 0.14, 1.77 ± 0.18, 1.44 ± 0.24 and 0.98 ± 0.24 log units, respectively. Significant differences were observed in defocus curves for photopic and mesopic conditions (p < 0.0001). A mean disturbance index of 0.28 ± 0.22 was obtained. Conclusions Bilateral FineVision IOL implant achieved a full range of adequate vision, satisfactory contrast sensitivity, and a lack of significant adverse photic phenomena. Trial registration Eudract Clinical Trials Registry Number: 2014-003266-2.