RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare ray-tracing aberrometry, Hartmann-Shack wavefront analysis, automated refraction, and manifest refraction in patients with echelette diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs) and patients with monofocal IOLs with negative spherical aberration. METHODS: Pseudophakic patients implanted with an echelette diffractive IOL (Tecnis ZXR00; Johnson & Johnson Vision) and a control group consisting of patients implanted with a negative spherical aberration monofocal IOL (Tecnis ZCBOO, Johnson & Johnson Vision) were included in this study. Ray-tracing aberrometry (iTrace; Tracey Technologies Corp.), Hartmann-Shack wavefront analysis (LADARWave; Alcon Laboratories, Inc.), automated refraction (Topcon KR-8800; Topcon Medical Systems, Inc.), and manifest refraction spherical equivalent were performed 1 to 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty-two eyes implanted with a ZXR00 IOL and 30 eyes implanted with a ZCBOO IOL were enrolled in this study. The ZXR00 IOL group yielded more myopic results with automated refactions (-0.62 ± 0.41 diopters [D]), Hartmann-Shack wavefront analysis (-0.85 ± 0.40 D), and ray-tracing aberrometry (-0.45 ± 0.64 D), compared to manifest refraction (-0.12 ± 0.44 D) (P < .001). Hartmann-Shack wavefront analysis showed a statistically significant myopic shift (-0.39 ± 0.47 D) in the ZCBOO group compared to ray-tracing aberrometry, automated refraction, and manifest refraction spherical equivalent (-0.14 ± 0.56, -0.14 ± 0.50, and -0.06 ± 0.44 D, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Manifest refraction techniques unique to echelette technology should be used to avoid over-minus end points. Autorefractors and aberrometers commonly use near-infrared light; thus, myopic results are expected with echelette achromatic technology. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(5):334-339.].
