Comparative Analysis Of Distance And Near Contrast Sensitivity Outcomes Obtained With One Refractive Partial And Two Diffractive Full Range Of Focus Intraocular Lenses
Published 2026 - 44th Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: POCAT511 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/x5sr-v290
Authors: Dr David Pablo P Pinero* 1 , Dr Alfonso Arias-Puente 2 , Mr Pedro Ruiz-Forte 2 , Mrs Ana Fernández 2 , Mr Jesús Fernández 2 , Mr Luis Miguel Salaorni 3 , Dr José Luis Rincón Rosales 2
1Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy,University of Alicante,Alicante,Spain, 2Ophthalmology,Vithas Medimar International Hospital,Alicante,Spain, 3Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy,Vithas Medimar International Hospital,Alicante,Spain
Purpose
To evaluate and compare the distance and near contrast sensitivity outcomes with three different types of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs): one refractive partial range of focus (PRoF) IOL and two diffractive full range of focus (FRoF) IOLs.
Setting
Department of Ophthalmology. Vithas Medimar International Hospital, Alicante, Spain
Methods
A total of 60 patients ranging in age from 56 to 73 years old were included in this study. All subjects underwent uneventful cataract surgery with implantation of the Tecnis PureSee® DEN00V (Johnson & Johnson Vision) (20 patients, PRoF group), FineVision HP (BVI, Waltham, USA) (20 patients, FRoF1 group) and RayOne RAO603F IOL (Rayner, West Sussex, UK). Visual acuity (VA), refractive, photopic distance achromatic contrast sensitivity (CS) (CSV-1000 test) and near achromatic and chromatic CS (Optopad-CSF test) outcomes were evaluated at 3 months after surgery.
Results
Significantly better corrected distance VA were found in PRoF group (p<0.001). In contrast, significantly better distance-corrected intermediate and near VA were found in FRoF groups compared to PRoF group (p<0.001). Mean VA was 0.20 logMAR or better in FRoF group for defocus levels from +0.50 to -1.50 D. Regarding distance CS, significantly worse values were found for 18 cycles/º in FRoF group compared to FRoF1 (p=0.02) and FRoF2 IOLs (p=0.01). When comparing near achromatic CS, only significantly worse values were found for 24 cycles/º in the FRoF group (p<0.001). In addition, better blue-yellow CS with FRoF IOLs for 1 cycle/º and better red-green CS with FRoF2 IOL compared to PRoF for all spatial frequencies were found (p≤0.001)
Conclusions
The FRoF evaluated provides a functional rehabilitation of vision across several distances, while maintaining good levels of visual quality in comparison to FRoF IOLs. The reduction of visual acuity at near with the PRoF IOL evaluated has a minimal impact on near CS for the blue-yellow channel, becoming more relevant for the red-green channel. Future studies must investigate the different chromatic behaviour of the presbyopia-correcting IOLs evaluated.