Official ESCRS | European Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgeons


A comparison of optical and visual performance of different premium hydrophobic acrylic aspheric IOLs

Search Title by author or title

Session Details

Session Title: Monofocal IOLs: New Biomaterials & Visual Performance

Session Date/Time: Tuesday 17/09/2019 | 16:30-18:00

Paper Time: 17:18

Venue: Free Paper Forum: Podium 2

First Author: : L.Daniel Ponniah INDIA

Co Author(s): :    H. Anandan                             

Abstract Details


To compare the optical and functional visual qualities of commonly used hydrophobic acrylic aspheric premium IOLs in uneventful cataract surgeries.


A prospective, comparative, non-randomized clinical trial, conducted in the department of cataract services, Dr. Agarwals Eye Hospitals, Tirunelveli, S.India.


Premium aspheric hydrophobic IOLs were grouped into Aspheric Hydrophobic IOL (Group 1, n=28), Glistening free IOL (Group 2, n=22), Apodized diffractive multifocal +3D IOL (Group 3, n=20) Corneal aberration correcting IOL (Group 4, n=34) and Natural IOL with blue light filter (Group 5, n=15) were implanted into 119 eyes using 2.2 mm micro phacoemulsification in uncomplicated & uneventful surgeries by a single surgeon. The uncorrected distance visual acuity, near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity functions (CSF 7.5 cpd in photopic conditions without glare) and wavefront analysis for postoperative HOAs (RMS-HOAs) were measured at 6 months and compared within groups


Post-op residual sphere in Group3 was better with +0.031D, cylinder was better in group5 (0.0833D) and was comparable with other groups. Defocus functions of Group3 showed 0.2 LogMAR, 0.31 LogMAR at intermediate and near. Other lens types required corrections for near vision. CSF in group1 was (1.8655), group2 (1.8250), group3 (1.6500), group4 (1.8515) and group5 (1.8167). CSF was significantly lower in group3 (p=0.001). HOAs (mic.) in group1 was 0.21 (p=0.535), group2 was 0.33 (p=0.001), group3 was 0.46 (p=0.001), group4 was 0.22 (p=0.112) and group5 was 0.39 (p=0.001). Groups 2,3 & 5 had high HOAs. No PCO was noted.


This prospective study concluded that groups 1 and 4 performed well in terms of residual refractive errors, contrast sensitivity had least HOAs. Groups 2 and 5 performed well in terms of residual refractive errors, contrast sensitivity and had significantly greater HOAs. Group 3 had good residual refractive errors and near visual functions but had significantly low contrast sensitivity and greater HOAs

Financial Disclosure:


Back to previous