Autorefraction versus subjective refraction in a radially asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens

Jan Willem van der Linden, Violette Vrijman, Rana Al-Saady, Rana El-Saady, Ivanka J. van der Meulen, Maarten P. Mourits, Ruth Lapid-Gortzak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To evaluate whether the automated refraction (AR) correlates with subjective manifest (MR) refraction in eyes implanted with radially asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs). This retrospective study evaluated 52 eyes (52 patients) implanted with a radially asymmetric multifocal IOL (LS-312 MF30, Oculentis, Germany). At 3 months postoperatively, the AR and MR values were compared to determine the correlation between the sphere (S), the spherical equivalent (SE) and the astigmatic components J0 and J45. The difference of mean spherical measurement was +0.98D ± 0.62, with the AR measuring more myopic. The difference of the mean spherical equivalent was +1.11D ± 0.57, again with AR being more myopic. Both these differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The astigmatic components showed less differences, with the mean difference of the J0 being -0.09D ± 0.43, and the J45 of +0.04D ± 0.47, which were both not statistically significant (p = 0.123 and p = 0.531, respectively). Correlation analysis of the refractive parameters showed r(2) = 0.067, r(2) = 0.078, r(2) = 0.018 and r(2) = 0.015, respectively, all of which point to a low correlation between the AR and the MR. Autorefraction shows poor correlation to manifest subjective refraction with these radially asymmetric multifocal IOLs. The autorefraction systematically underestimates the spherical and spherical equivalent power, while the correlation between the astigmatic components was also low. Autorefraction seems not a valid starting point for manifest subjective refraction with these types of lenses, unless a corrective factor of about +1 dioptre is used
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)764-768
JournalActa ophthalmologica
Volume92
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Cite this