FDA SSED documents provide high-quality trial data, but cross-platform comparisons require caution. Here is how to read a defocus curve correctly.
Defocus curves are the most clinically useful tool for comparing the functional visual range of premium IOLs — but only when the data source and methodology are understood. Marketing materials, peer-reviewed studies, and regulatory submissions use different protocols, different lighting conditions, and different patient populations. FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) documents provide high-quality regulatory trial data, but cross-platform comparisons should be interpreted cautiously because trials were not conducted head-to-head.
A defocus curve plots visual acuity against a series of added vergence demands, expressed in diopters. Negative defocus values simulate near viewing distances: -1.0D approximates arm's length, -2.5D approximates intermediate reading distance, and -3.0D to -4.0D approximates near reading distance. Positive defocus values assess tolerance to overcorrection and distance-side blur.
FDA PMA trials typically use controlled visual acuity protocols, though specific methodology varies by lens program — including differences in monocular versus binocular testing, photopic versus mesopic conditions, chart type, lens presentation order, and the postoperative timepoint used. These variations mean that SSED curves from different lenses cannot be treated as direct head-to-head comparisons even when plotted on the same axes.
One critical methodological detail is whether a defocus curve is monocular or binocular. Binocular summation materially improves apparent performance — binocular curves are smoother, show less pronounced dips, and generally appear more favorable than monocular curves from the same lens. Comparing a binocular curve from one platform to a monocular curve from another is misleading and unfortunately common in marketing contexts. When reviewing any defocus curve, confirming whether the data is monocular or binocular is essential before drawing clinical conclusions.
The functional range of a lens is conventionally defined as the vergence range over which the patient achieves VA of 0.2 logMAR (approximately 20/32) or better. This threshold is not universal — some clinicians use 0.1 logMAR for a more stringent standard — but 0.2 logMAR is the most commonly cited clinical reference point.
Monofocal lenses produce a single peak centered at the distance correction, with rapid deterioration as defocus increases in either direction. Extended depth of focus lenses produce a broader, more gradual curve — good distance and intermediate vision with a slower decline toward near. Trifocal lenses generally show multiple functional peaks spanning distance, intermediate, and near, though the exact profile varies between platforms.
Defocus curves depend on the exact refraction used as the starting point. Small differences in best-corrected distance refraction can materially shift the apparent near performance of the curve. A patient refracted slightly myopic will appear to have better functional near acuity on a defocus curve than the same patient refracted to plano. This is worth understanding when interpreting curves generated with slightly different refraction endpoints across studies.
FDA SSED documents are publicly available for each PMA-approved lens and contain the defocus curves generated during the pivotal clinical trial, the conditions used, sample sizes, and the enrolled patient populations. They represent rigorous, prospectively collected data generated under regulatory oversight.
Important limitations apply. FDA pivotal trials enroll selected populations — typically excluding eyes with significant corneal irregularity, prior refractive surgery, macular disease, and other confounders. Real-world outcomes in broader populations may differ. Some FDA submissions include mesopic analyses and some do not, making low-light performance comparisons across platforms inconsistent in the regulatory record.
Prospective head-to-head studies using a single standardized protocol provide more directly comparable data than cross-SSED review. Cochener et al. (2018) conducted such a comparative evaluation across trifocal and EDOF platforms, providing context that cross-SSED comparison cannot.
Defocus curves measure VA at controlled vergence demands under standardized conditions. They do not capture contrast sensitivity, dysphotopsia symptoms, glare, halos, neuroadaptation, reading speed, or real-world task performance. A lens with an excellent defocus curve may still produce patient dissatisfaction if dysphotopsia is not adequately counseled. Defocus curves are a useful but incomplete basis for premium IOL selection — they should be interpreted alongside contrast sensitivity data, dysphotopsia profiles, patient visual demands, and published quality-of-life outcomes.
IOLDx Clinical displays SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Haigis side by side for every lens.
Open IOL Planner →