ESCRS - POCAT491 - Comparative Analysis Of Multiple Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Within A Single Centre Using A Standardised Defocus Curve Methodology

Comparative Analysis Of Multiple Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Within A Single Centre Using A Standardised Defocus Curve Methodology

Published 2026 - 44th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: POCAT491 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/2878-kf89

Authors: Dr Gilles Lesieur* 1 , Mr Paul Dupeyre 1

1Centre Iridis,Albi,France

Purpose

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) differ in optical design, energy distribution, depth of focus profile, and dysphotopsia patterns. However, inter study comparisons remain difficult due to heterogeneous methodologies and inconsistent outcome measures. This study aims to establish a standardised and reproducible comparison of multiple MIOL platforms within a single centre using identical surgical protocols, evaluation criteria, and defocus curve methodology to facilitate objective clinical decision making.

Setting

Private refractive and cataract surgery center, Centre IRIDIS, Albi, France.

Methods

A prospective observational comparative study included patients implanted with nine MIOL designs: Odyssey and Synergy (Johnson and Johnson Vision), FineVision (BVI), Vivinex Gemetric and Gemetric Plus (Hoya), ASQELIO Trifocal (AST Products), RayOne Galaxy (Rayner), Intensity (Hanita Lenses), and AT ELANA 841P (Carl Zeiss Meditec). All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon using standardised biometric protocols. Outcomes included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), distance corrected visual acuity (DCVA), contrast 25 percent sensitivity, and monocular defocus curves with distance correction in trial frames under controlled photopic conditions and measured by the same examiner following a standardised protocol. 

Results

Statistical analysis used analysis of variance and multivariate regression. Results are under analysis.
Preliminary pooled data demonstrate distinct optical and functional signatures across the nine MIOL platforms. Differences were observed in intermediate plateau stability, near focal peak amplitude, contrast performance, and defocus curve smoothness. When analysed under homogeneous conditions within a single centre, inter implant variability becomes more clinically interpretable than comparisons derived from heterogeneous literature sources. Final adjusted statistical outcomes are currently under analysis and will be presented at the meeting.

Conclusions

Multifocal IOLs exhibit specific optical profiles rather than hierarchical superiority. A standardised single centre methodology comparing multiple platforms using identical defocus curve protocols enables clearer and clinically relevant interpretation. Such a framework supports individualised implant selection based on patient functional priorities rather than marketing driven positioning.