Reply to Cione et al. Comment on "Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947".

We thank Cioni et al. for their suggestions and comments [...].

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm.

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang−Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula's accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy.

Comparison of the Visual Outcomes of an Extended Depth-of-Focus Lens and a Trifocal Lens.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of the AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens and the TECNIS Symfony extended depth-of-focus lens at near and distance visual ranges. METHODS: A total of 146 patients (221 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification and cataract extraction and received either a PanOptix or Symfony lens from January 2019 to July 2020 were included in the study (83 PanOptix non-toric, 30 PanOptix toric, 70 Symfony non-toric, and 38 Symfony toric). Uncorrected distance (UDVA), uncorrected near (UNVA), and corrected distance (CDVA) visual acuity were assessed at one-day, one-month, and three-months postoperatively. Averages of UDVA, UNVA, and CDVA were taken to evaluate which lens was superior at near and distance visual ranges. Secondary outcome measures including glare, halo, dryness, and problems with night vision were documented at each postoperative visit. RESULTS: At one month postoperatively, the average UNVA was 0.16 ± 0.14 logMAR in the PanOptix group and 0.21 ± 0.14 logMAR in the Symfony group (P=0.007); the average UDVA for the PanOptix group was 0.09 ± 0.13 logMAR compared to the Symfony group at 0.10 ± 0.14 logMAR (P=0.67); and the average CDVA was 0.02 ± 0.05 logMAR in the PanOptix group and 0.00 ± 0.04 logMAR in the Symfony group (P=0.11). At three months postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences in UNVA, UDVA, or CDVA between the two groups (P=0.18, 0.79, 0.68 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in secondary outcome measures at one- and three-months (P=0.49, 0.10 respectively). CONCLUSION: The AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens appears to afford better UNVA compared to the TECNIS Symfony extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens at one-month postoperatively, though this difference was not seen at three months postoperatively. There is no statistically significant difference in UDVA and CDVA between the two groups at postoperative day one, one-month, and three-months.