Comparison of Ocular Aberration and Clinical Outcome between Different Aspheric Intraocular Lenses in Both Eyes

Purpose: We compared the ocular aberration and clinical outcome between different aspheric intraocular lenses (IOL) in both eyes. Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study was comprised of patients with bilateral cataract who received two different aspheric IOLs implanted in both eyes: negatively aspheric Tecnis ZCB00 and spherically neutral Akreos MI60. Total and corneal aberrations computed by Wavescan and Pentacam were assessed at 6 months to investigate the effects of the IOL’s spherical aberration on the eye and to analyze the incidence and degree of posterior capsule opacification. By using spherical aberration of the cornea and the IOLs, values calculated via Ray-tracing software and Wavescan were compared. Total spherical aberration was analyzed by the MATLAB program and converting the pupil size to 6.0, 4.5, 3.0 mm. Results: A total of 25 patients were included. Regarding pre-operative corneal aberration, ZCB00 group was 0.232 ± 0.119 μm while MI60 group was 0.240 ± 0.117 μm, and there was no difference between the two IOLs. At 6 months after total ocular spherical aberration, MI60 group (pupil size 6.0 mm; 0.296 ± 0.097 μm, 4.5 mm; 0.094 ± 0.032 μm, 3.0 mm; 0.019 ± 0.006 μm) had more positive values than ZCB00 group (pupil size 6.0 mm; 0.051 ± 0.105 μm, 4.5 mm; 0.009 ± 0.034 μm, 3.0 mm; 0.002 ± 0.007 μm) (p < 0.001). When calculated using the ray tracing method, based on the results after surgery, MI60 group’s total spherical aberrations were higher than ZCB00 group. However, from 1 month to 6 months after surgery, the uncorrected distance visual acuity, spherical equivalent and posterior capsule opacification showed no differences between the two IOLs. Conclusions: In eyes with aspheric IOLs with negative spherical aberration, spherical aberration was lower than spherically neutral aspheric IOLs. Regarding postoperative visual acuity, spherical equivalent and posterior capsule opacification, there were no significant differences between the two groups. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2017;58(5):530-538