Multifocal intraocular lens differentiation using defocus curves

Purpose: To determine the most appropriate analysis technique for the differentiation of multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) designs using defocus curve assessment of visual capability.Methods:Four groups of fifteen subjects were implanted bilaterally with either monofocal intraocular lenses, refractive MIOLs, diffractive MIOLs, or a combination of refractive and diffractive MIOLs. Defocus curves between -5.0D and +1.5D were evaluated using an absolute and relative depth-of-focus method, the direct comparison method and a new 'Area-of-focus' metric. The results were correlated with a subjective perception of near and intermediate vision. Results:Neither depth-of-focus method of analysis were sensitive enough to differentiate between MIOL groups (p>0.05). The direct comparison method indicated that the refractive MIOL group performed better at +1.00, -1.00 and -1.50 D and worse at -3.00, -3.50, -4.00 and -5.00D compared to the diffractive MIOL group (p

Is randomisation necessary for measuring defocus curves in pre-presbyopes?

Purpose: Defocus curves are used to evaluate the subjective range of clear vision of presbyopic corrections such as in eyes implanted with accommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs). This study determines whether letter sequences and/or lens presentation order ought to be randomised when measuring defocus curves. Methods: Defocus curves (range +2.00DS to -2.00DS) were measured on 18 pre-presbyopic subjects (mean age 24.1 ± 4.2 years) for six combinations of sequential or randomised positive or negative lens progression and non-randomised or randomised letter sequences. The letters were presented on a computerised logMAR chart at 6 m. Results: Overall there was a statistically significant difference between the six combinations (ANOVA, p < 0.05) attributable to the combination of non-randomised letters with non-randomised lens progression from negative to positive defocus (p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in defocus curve measurements if both letters and lens order were randomised compared to if only one of these variables was randomised (p > 0.05). Non-randomised letters, with a sequential lens progression from negative to positive, was significantly different to all other combinations when compared individually (Student's T-test, p < 0.003 on all comparisons), and was confirmed as the sole source of the overall significant difference. There was no statistically significant difference if both lens presentation order and letter sequences were randomised compared to if only one or the other of these variables was randomised. Conclusion: Non-randomised letters and non-randomised lens progression on their own did not affect the subjective amplitude of accommodation as measured by defocus curves, although their combination should be avoided. © 2007 British Contact Lens Association.

Exploring the optimum step size for defocus curves

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of reducing the number of visual acuity measurements made in a defocus curve on the quality of data quantified. Setting: Midland Eye, Solihull, United Kingdom. Design: Evaluation of a technique. Methods: Defocus curves were constructed by measuring visual acuity on a distance logMAR letter chart, randomizing the test letters between lens presentations. The lens powers evaluated ranged between +1.50 diopters (D) and -5.00 D in 0.50 D steps, which were also presented in a randomized order. Defocus curves were measured binocularly with the Tecnis diffractive, Rezoom refractive, Lentis rotationally asymmetric segmented (+3.00 D addition [add]), and Finevision trifocal multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) implanted bilaterally, and also for the diffractive IOL and refractive or rotationally asymmetric segmented (+3.00 D and +1.50 D adds) multifocal IOLs implanted contralaterally. Relative and absolute range of clear-focus metrics and area metrics were calculated for curves fitted using 0.50 D, 1.00 D, and 1.50 D steps and a near add-specific profile (ie, distance, half the near add, and the full near-add powers). Results: A significant difference in simulated results was found in at least 1 of the relative or absolute range of clear-focus or area metrics for each of the multifocal designs examined when the defocus-curve step size was increased (P<.05). Conclusion: Faster methods of capturing defocus curves from multifocal IOL designs appear to distort the metric results and are therefore not valid. Financial Disclosure: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. © 2013 ASCRS and ESCRS.

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.

Clinical and quality of life data correlation with a single-optic accommodating intraocular lens

Purpose: To examine a single-optic accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) visual performance by correlating IOL implanted eyes’ defocus curve with the intraocular aberrometric profile and the impact on the quality of life (QOL). Methods: Prospective consecutive case series study including a total of 25 eyes of 14 patients with ages ranging between 52 and 79 years old. All cases underwent cataract surgery with implantation of the single-optic accommodating IOL Crystalens HD (Bausch & Lomb). Distance and near visual acuity outcomes, intraocular aberrations, the defocus curve and QOL (NEI VFQ-25) were evaluated 3 months after surgery. Results: A significant improvement in distance visual acuity was found postoperatively (p = 0.02). Mean postoperative LogMAR uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.44 ± 0.23 (20/30). 60% of eyes had a postoperative addition between 0 and 1.5 diopters (D). The defocus curve showed an area of maximum visual acuity for the levels of defocus corresponding to distance and intermediate vision (−1 to +0.5 D). Postoperative intermediate visual acuity correlated significantly some QOL indices (r ≥ 0.51, p ≤ 0.03; difficulty in going down steps or seeing how people react to things that patient says) as well as with J0 component of manifest cylinder. Postoperative distance-corrected near visual acuity correlated significantly with age (r = 0.65, p < 0.01). Conclusions: This accommodating IOL seems to be able to restore the distance visual function as well as to provide an improvement in intermediate and near vision with a significant impact on patient's QOL, although limited by age and astigmatism. Future studies with larger sample sizes should confirm all these trends.

Comparative Analysis of the Visual Performance After Cataract Surgery With Implantation of a Bifocal or Trifocal Diffractive IOL

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the visual, refractive, contrast sensitivity, and aberrometric outcomes with a diffractive bifocal and trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) of the same material and haptic design. METHODS: Sixty eyes of 30 patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two groups: the bifocal group, including 30 eyes implanted with the bifocal diffractive IOL AT LISA 801 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), and the trifocal group, including eyes implanted with the trifocal diffractive IOL AT LISA tri 839 MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Analysis of visual and refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, ocular aberrations (OPD-Scan III; Nidek, Inc., Gagamori, Japan), and defocus curve were performed during a 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between groups were found in 3-month postoperative uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (P > .21). However, uncorrected, corrected, and distance-corrected near and intermediate visual acuities were significantly better in the trifocal group (P < .01). No significant differences between groups were found in postoperative spherical equivalent (P = .22). In the binocular defocus curve, the visual acuity was significantly better for defocus of -0.50 to -1.50 diopters in the trifocal group (P < .04) and -3.50 to -4.00 diopters in the bifocal group (P < .03). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in most of the postoperative corneal, internal, and ocular aberrations (P > .31), and in contrast sensitivity for most frequencies analyzed (P > .15). CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal diffractive IOLs provide significantly better intermediate vision over bifocal IOLs, with equivalent postoperative levels of visual and ocular optical quality.

Comparative analysis of the visual performance and aberrometric outcomes with a new hybrid and two silicone hydrogel multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study

Background: The aim was to evaluate the visual performance achieved with a new multifocal hybrid contact lens and to compare it with that obtained with two other currently available multifocal soft contact lenses. Methods: This pilot prospective comparative study comprised a total of 16 presbyopic eyes of eight patients ranging in age from 43 to 58 years. All patients were fitted with three different models of multifocal contact lens: Duette multifocal (SynergEyes), Air Optix AQUA multifocal (Alcon) and Biofinity multifocal (CooperVision). Fittings were performed randomly in each patient according to a random number sequence, with a wash-out period between fittings of seven days. At two weeks post-fitting, visual, photopic contrast sensitivity and ocular aberrometry were evaluated. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in distance and near visual acuity achieved with the three different types of multifocal contact lens (p ≥ 0.05). Likewise, no significant differences between lenses were found in the monocular and binocular defocus curve (p ≥ 0.10). Concerning contrast sensitivity, better monocular contrast sensitivities for 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree were found with the Duette and Air Optix multifocal compared to Biofinity (p = 0.02). Binocularly, differences between lenses were not significant (p ≥ 0.27). Furthermore, trefoil aberration was significantly higher with Biofinity multifocal (p < 0.01) and Air Optix (p = 0.01) multifocal compared to Duette. Conclusions: The Duette multifocal hybrid contact lens seems to provide similar visual quality outcomes in presbyopic patients with low corneal astigmatism, when compared with other soft multifocal contact lenses. This preliminary result should be confirmed in studies with larger samples.

Implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: One-year follow-up

Purpose: To evaluate the visual, refractive, contrast-sensitivity, and aberrometric outcomes during a 1-year follow-up after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL). Setting: Premium Clinic, Teplice, Czech Republic. Design: Prospective case series. Methods: This study included eyes of patients having cataract surgery with implantation of the trifocal IOL model AT Lisa tri 839MP. Distance, intermediate (66 and 80 cm), and near (33 and 40 cm) vision; contrast sensitivity; aberrometric outcomes; and the defocus curve were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up. The level of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) was also evaluated. Results: In 120 eyes (60 patients), 1 month postoperatively, an improvement was observed in all visual parameters (P ≤ .03) except corrected near and intermediate visual acuities (both P ≥ .05). From 1 month to 12 months postoperatively, small but statistically significant changes were observed in uncorrected and corrected distance and near visual acuities (all P ≤ .03) and in uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (P = .01). In the defocus curve, no significant differences were found between visual acuities corresponding to defocus levels of −1.0 diopter (D) and −2.0 D (P = .22). The level of ocular spherical aberration decreased statistically significantly at 6 months (P < .001). Ocular and internal higher-order aberrations increased minimally but significantly from 6 to 12 months postoperatively (P < .001). The mean 12-month PCO score was 0.32 ± 0.44 (SD). Four eyes (3.3%) required neodymium:YAG capsulotomy. Conclusion: The trifocal IOL provided complete and stable visual restoration after cataract surgery during a 12-month follow-up, with good levels of visual quality.

Visual outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens

Purpose - To assess clinical outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL). Setting - Midland Eye Institute, Solihull, United Kingdom. Design - Cohort study. Methods - Patients had bilateral implantation of Finevision trifocal IOLs. Uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and manifest refraction were measured 2 months postoperatively. Defocus curves were assessed under photopic and mesopic conditions over a range of +1.50 to -4.00 diopters (D) in 0.50 D steps. Contrast sensitivity function was assessed under photopic conditions. Halometry was used to measure the angular size of monocular and binocular photopic scotomas arising from a glare source. Patient satisfaction with uncorrected near vision was assessed using the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ). Results - The mean monocular CDVA was 0.08 logMAR ± 0.08 (SD) and the mean binocular CDVA, 0.06 ± 0.08 logMAR. Defocus curve testing showed an extended range of clear vision from +1.00 to -2.50 D defocus, with a significant difference in acuity between photopic conditions and mesopic conditions at -1.50 D defocus only. Photopic contrast sensitivity was significantly better binocularly than monocularly at all spatial frequencies. Halometry showed a glare scotoma of a mean size similar to that in previous studies of multifocal and accommodating IOLs; there were no subjective complaints of dysphotopsia. The mean NAVQ Rasch score for satisfaction with near vision was 15.9 ± 10.7 logits. Conclusions - The trifocal IOL implanted binocularly produced good distance visual acuity and near and intermediate visual function. Patients were very satisfied with their uncorrected near vision.

Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens

Aim: To evaluate the performance of an aspheric diffractive multifocal acrylic intraocular lens (IOL), ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis. Setting: Five sites across Europe. Methods: Fifty-two patients with cataracts (average age 68.5±10.5 years, 35 female) were bilaterally implanted with the aspheric diffractive multifocal IOL after completing a questionnaire regarding their optical visual symptoms, use of visual correction and their visual satisfaction. The questionnaire was completed again 4-6 months after surgery along with measures of uncorrected and best-corrected distance and near visual acuity, under photopic and mesopic lighting, reading ability, defocus curve testing and ocular examination for adverse events. Results: The residual refractive error was 0.01±0.47D with 56% of eyes within ±0.25D and 97% within ±1.0D. Uncorrected visual acuity was 0.02±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.15±0.30 logMAR at near, only reducing to 0.07±0.10logMAR at distance and 0.21±0.25logMAR at near in mesopic conditions.The defocus curve showed a near addition between 2.5-3.0 D allowing a reading acuity of 0.08±0.13 logMAR, with a range of clear vision <0.3 logMAR of ∼4.0 D. The average reading speed was 121.4±30.8 words per minute. Spectacle independence was 100% for distance and 88% for near, with high levels of satisfaction reported. Overall rating of vision without glasses could be explained (r=0.760) by preoperative best-corrected distance acuity, postoperative reading acuity and postoperative uncorrected distance acuity in photopic conditions (p<0.001). Only two minor adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The ZMB00 1-Piece Tecnis multifocal IOL provides a good visual outcome at distance and near with minimal adverse effects.

Randomized crossover trial of silicone hydrogel presbyopic contact lenses

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of four commercially available silicone hydrogel multifocal monthly contact lens designs against monovision. METHODS: A double-masked randomized crossover trial of Air Optix Aqua multifocal, PureVision 2 for Presbyopia, Acuvue OASYS for Presbyopia, Biofinity multifocal, and monovision with Biofinity contact lenses was conducted on 35 presbyopes (54.3 ± 6.2 years). After 4 weeks of wear, visual performance was quantified by high- and low-contrast visual acuity under photopic and mesopic conditions, reading speed, defocus curves, stereopsis, halometry, aberrometry, Near Activity Visual Questionnaire rating, and subjective quality of vision scoring. Bulbar, limbal, and palpebral hyperemia and corneal staining were graded to monitor the impact of each contact lens on ocular physiology. RESULTS: High-contrast photopic visual acuity (p = 0.102), reading speed (F = 1.082, p = 0.368), and aberrometry (F = 0.855, p = 0.493) were not significantly different between presbyopic lens options. Defocus curve profiles (p <0.001), stereopsis (p <0.001), halometry (F = 4.101, p = 0.004), Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (F = 3.730, p = 0.007), quality of vision (p = 0.002), bulbar hyperemia (p = 0.020), and palpebral hyperemia (p = 0.012) differed significantly between lens types, with the Biofinity multifocal lens design principal (center-distance lens was fitted to the dominant eye and a center-near lens to the nondominant eye) typically outperforming the other lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Although ocular aberration variation between individuals largely masks the differences in optics between current multifocal contact lens designs, certain design strategies can outperform monovision, even in early presbyopes.

Evaluating techniques to improve visual performance with and assessment of premium intraocular lenses

Premium Intraocular Lenses (IOLs) such as toric IOLs, multifocal IOLs (MIOLs) and accommodating IOLs (AIOLs) can provide better refractive and visual outcomes compared to standard monofocal designs, leading to greater levels of post-operative spectacle independence. The principal theme of this thesis relates to the development of new assessment techniques that can help to improve future premium IOL design. IOLs designed to correct astigmatism form the focus of the first part of the thesis. A novel toric IOL design was devised to decrease the effect of toric rotation on patient visual acuity, but found to have neither a beneficial or detrimental impact on visual acuity retention. IOL tilt, like rotation, may curtail visual performance; however current IOL tilt measurement techniques require the use of specialist equipment not readily available in most ophthalmological clinics. Thus a new idea that applied Pythagoras’s theory to digital images of IOL optic symmetricality in order to calculate tilt was proposed, and shown to be both accurate and highly repeatable. A literature review revealed little information on the relationship between IOL tilt, decentration and rotation and so this was examined. A poor correlation between these factors was found, indicating they occur independently of each other. Next, presbyopia correcting IOLs were investigated. The light distribution of different MIOLs and an AIOL was assessed using perimetry, to establish whether this could be used to inform optimal IOL design. Anticipated differences in threshold sensitivity between IOLs were not however found, thus perimetry was concluded to be ineffective in mapping retinal projection of blur. The observed difference between subjective and objective measures of accommodation, arising from the influence of pseudoaccommodative factors, was explored next to establish how much additional objective power would be required to restore the eye’s focus with AIOLs. Blur tolerance was found to be the key contributor to the ocular depth of focus, with an approximate dioptric influence of 0.60D. Our understanding of MIOLs may be limited by the need for subjective defocus curves, which are lengthy and do not permit important additional measures to be undertaken. The use of aberrometry to provide faster objective defocus curves was examined. Although subjective and objective measures related well, the peaks of the MIOL defocus curve profile were not evident with objective prediction of acuity, indicating a need for further refinement of visual quality metrics based on ocular aberrations. The experiments detailed in the thesis evaluate methods to improve visual performance with toric IOLs. They also investigate new techniques to allow more rapid post-operative assessment of premium IOLs, which could allow greater insights to be obtained into several aspects of visual quality, in order to optimise future IOL design and ultimately enhance patient satisfaction.

Visual and quality outcomes following bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens

Purpose: To examine visual outcomes following bilateral implantation of the FineVision trifocal intraocular lens (IOL; PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). Methods: 26 patients undergoing routine cataract surgery were implanted bilaterally with the FineVision Trifocal IOL and followed up post-operatively for 3 months. The FineVision optic features a combination of 2 diffractive structures, resulting in distance, intermediate (+1.75 D add) and near vision (+3.50 D add) zones. Apodization of the optic surface increases far vision dominance with pupil aperture. Data collected at the 3 month visit included uncorrected and corrected distance (CDVA) and near vision; subjective refraction; defocus curve testing (photopic and mesopic); contrast sensitivity (CSV-1000); halometry glare testing and a questionnaire (NAVQ) to gauge near vision function and patient satisfaction. Results: The cohort comprised 15 males and 11 females, aged 52.5–82.4 years (mean 70.6 ± 8.2 years). Mean post-operative UDVA was 0.22 ± 0.14 logMAR, with a mean spherical equivalent refraction of +0.02 ± 0.35 D. Mean CDVA was 0.13 ± 0.10 logMAR monocularly, and 0.09 ± 0.07 logMAR binocularly. Defocus curve testing showed an extensive range of clear vision in both photopic and mesopic conditions. Patients showed high levels of satisfaction with their near vision (mean ± 0.9 ± 0.6, where 0 = completely satisfied, and 4 = completely unsatisfied) and demonstrated good spectacle independence. Conclusion: The FineVision IOL can be considered in patients seeking spectacle dependence following cataract surgery, and provide good patient satisfaction with uncorrected vision.

Can aberrometry provide rapid and reliable measures of subjective depth of focus following multifocal intraocular lens implantation?

Purpose: To determine whether the ‘through-focus’ aberrations of a multifocal and accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) implanted patient can be used to provide rapid and reliable measures of their subjective range of clear vision. Methods: Eyes that had been implanted with a concentric (n = 8), segmented (n = 10) or accommodating (n = 6) intraocular lenses (mean age 62.9 ± 8.9 years; range 46-79 years) for over a year underwent simultaneous monocular subjective (electronic logMAR test chart at 4m with letters randomised between presentations) and objective (Aston open-field aberrometer) defocus curve testing for levels of defocus between +1.50 to -5.00DS in -0.50DS steps, in a randomised order. Pupil size and ocular aberration (a combination of the patient’s and the defocus inducing lens aberrations) at each level of blur was measured by the aberrometer. Visual acuity was measured subjectively at each level of defocus to determine the traditional defocus curve. Objective acuity was predicted using image quality metrics. Results: The range of clear focus differed between the three IOL types (F=15.506, P=0.001) as well as between subjective and objective defocus curves (F=6.685, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between subjective and objective defocus curves in the segmented or concentric ring MIOL group (P>0.05). However a difference was found between the two measures and the accommodating IOL group (P<0.001). Mean Delta logMAR (predicted minus measured logMAR) across all target vergences was -0.06 ± 0.19 logMAR. Predicted logMAR defocus curves for the multifocal IOLs did not show a near vision addition peak, unlike the subjective measurement of visual acuity. However, there was a strong positive correlation between measured and predicted logMAR for all three IOLs (Pearson’s correlation: P<0.001). Conclusions: Current subjective procedures are lengthy and do not enable important additional measures such as defocus curves under differently luminance or contrast levels to be assessed, which may limit our understanding of MIOL performance in real-world conditions. In general objective aberrometry measures correlated well with the subjective assessment indicating the relative robustness of this technique in evaluating post-operative success with segmented and concentric ring MIOL.

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.