Czech and Slovak Ophthalmology 98 10.31348/2018/6/1 Original article Virtiol – Simulation of Quality of Vision with Multifocal and Edof Intraocular Lenses Studený Pavel https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-4074 Hlaváček Jakub Chaloupka Roman Veselý Ľudovít Baxant Alina-Dana https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5072-5075 19 4 2019 6 1

Pupose: To experimentally compare the visual acuity and the subjective perception of different types of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) using a VirtIOL device/simulator in a group of volunteers with artephakia. Material and methods: This was an experimental study involving a total of 20 volunteers with artephakia (35 eyes). Each volunteer rated 5 types of IOLs, 4 presbyopia-correcting IOLs - WIOL-CF, Tecnis Symphony ZXR00, Acrysof IQ PanOptix TFNT00, M-flex 630 F, and as a reference lens, we used the monofocal IOL Acrysof SA60AT. The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance corrected intermediated visual acuity (DCIVA) and distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) were measured. Additionally, volunteers evaluated the quality of vision under normal or changed lighting conditions, and ranked IOL on scale from 1 to 5. Results: The CDVA evaluated using the VirtIOL device was very good for all tested IOLs (0.04-0.09 log MAR) with minimum differences. However, CDVA without simulator (-0.01 logMAR) was statistically significantly better in all cases. DCIVA was also very similar in each of the investigated IOLs, surprisingly even with monofocal IOL (0.21-0.23 logMAR), without using simulator the DCIVA was statistically significantly worse (0.36 logMAR). The DCNVA was the best for PanOptix intraocular lens (0.22 logMAR); M-flex, Symphony and WIOL-CF lenses had comparable results (0.31-0.34 logMAR). Again, surprisingly similar results were obtained with the use of monofocal IOL (0.36 ± 0.14). Subjective perception of vision through the IOLs was best rated for the monofocal control IOL, whereas Symphony, WIOL-CF and M-flex did not show any statistically significant difference either with or without glare. All tested IOLs were statistically significantly better if compared to PanOptix with or without glare. Conclusion: Simulation of vision through IOLs using VirtIOL simulator allows to compare different models of multifocal IOLs from the viewpoint of visual acuity and subjective perception. However, some caution should be exercised when evaluating the results, given that in our experiments, the monofocal IOL achieved relatively good results at near distance, which does not correspond to clinical experience. On the contrary, from the comparison of the results of CDVA without and with VirtIOL, it is obvious that visual acuity is slightly adversely affected by added optics.

 vision simulator VirtIOL multifocal intraocular lens presbyopia correction References Baldassare, R., Bedi, R.: Symfony Extended Depth of Focus IOL: a Review of Reported Data. Curr Ophthalmol Rep, 5; 2017:225-231. Benjamin, WJ.: Borish’s Clinical Refraction – E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006 Choi, J., Schwiegerling, J.: Optical performance measurement and night driving simulation of ReSTOR, ReZoom and Tecnis multifocal intraocular lenses in a model eye. J Refract Surg, 24; 2008:218-222. Cochener, B., Lafuma, A., Khoshnood, B. et al.: Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis. Clin Opthalmol, 5;2011:45-56. Breyer, DRH., Kaymak, H., Ax, T. et al.: Multifocal Intraocular Lenses and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila), 6; 2017: 339-349. Giner, A., Aldaba, M., Luque, SO. et al.: Analysis of the visual quality with multifocal intraocular lenses before surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 56:2015: 2983. Guthoff, RF., Gerlach, M., Fuchs, V. et al.: Characterization of starburst and halo size for different virtually implanted intraocular lenses in comparison to subject’s quality of vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 58; 2017:338. Kim, MJ., Zheleznyak, L., Macrae, S. et al.: Objective evaluation of through-focus optical performance of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses using an optical bench systém. J Cataract Refract Surg, 37; 2011:1305-1312. Maxwell, WA., Lane, SS., Zhou, F.: Performance of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses in distance optical bench test. J Cataract Refract Surg. 35; 2009:166-71. Mojzis, P., Kukuckova, L., Majerova, K. et al.: Comparative analysis of the visual performance after cataract surgery with implantation of a bifocal or trifocal diffractive IOL. J Refract Surg, 30; 2014: 666-672. Pujol, J., Aldaba, M., Giner, A. et al.: Visual performance evaluation of a new multifocal intraocular lens design before surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 55; 2014:3752. Pujol, J., Ondategui-Parra, JC., Baiella, L. et al.: Sperical subjective refraction with a novel 3D virtual reality based systém. J Optom, 10; 2017:43-51 Terwee, T., Weeber, H., van der Mooren, M. et al.: Visualization of the retinal image in an eye model with sperical and aspheric, diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg, 24; 2008:223-232 Veliká V., Hejsek L, Raiskup F.: Clinical Results of the implantation of Two Types of Multifocal Rotational Asymmetric Intraocular Lenses. Cesk Slov Oftalmol, 73; 2017:3-12. Veselá M., Baráková D., Lenčová A.: Analysis of reasons of intraocular lenses explantation. Cesk Slov Oftalmol, 60; 2004:30-36. Vilar, C., Hida, WT., de Medeiros, AL. et al.: Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of two bifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol, 11; 2017:1393-1397.