Aims To compare the quality of vision of patients with customised aspheric intraocular lenses (IOL) versus patients implanted with zero-aberration IOL after a 1.8 mm micro-incision cataract surgery (MICS).
Methods Fourty-three eyes were divided into two groups: 17 eyes (reference group) received zero aberration Acri.Smart 46LC and 26 eyes received a customised-aspheric IOL: either aspherical Acri.Smart 36A, generating a −0.18 μm SA compensation equivalent, or zero-aberration Acri.Smart 46LC. IOL asphericity was individually selected according to the corneal spherical aberration (SA) in order to produce a residual ocular SA close to +0.10 μm. Refraction, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivities, ocular wavefront aberrations and objective quality of vision assessment were analysed 6 months after MICS.
Results Postoperative BCVA was similar in both groups (p=0.58). Mesopic contrast sensitivities were significantly better in the custom group at intermediate and high spatial frequencies (p<0.001), while photopic contrast sensitivities were similar. Total SA was significantly lower in the custom group (Z40=0.085±0.075 vs 0.261±0.091 μm, p<0.001), whereas no difference was found in preoperative corneal SA. Modulation transfer function cut-off frequency was higher in the custom group than in the reference group (34.3±8.1 vs 23.57±8.6 cycles per degree, respectively; p=0.008).
Conclusion Individual selection of IOL asphericity with a preoperative corneal SA measurement allowed control of final ocular SA. Such customisation improves mesopic contrast sensitivity, and leads to better objective quality of vision.
- clinical trial, cornea
- contrast sensitivity
- customised aspheric IOL
- optics and refraction
- quality of vision
- wavefront aberrations
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the local ethics committee (CHU Bretonneau).
Patient consent Obtained.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.