Figures & data
Table 1 Preoperative patient demographics and pIOL characteristics
Figure 2 Plot of achieved vs attempted correction (predictability) for spherical equivalent (M) at 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up.
![Figure 2 Plot of achieved vs attempted correction (predictability) for spherical equivalent (M) at 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up.](/cms/asset/57379e10-6216-4d99-890c-01856e2cd176/doph_a_171576_f0002_c.jpg)
![Figure 2 Plot of achieved vs attempted correction (predictability) for spherical equivalent (M) at 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up.](/cms/asset/724460aa-1f2a-4abb-b493-f9e5b940f88c/doph_a_171576_f0002a_c.jpg)
Figure 3 Preoperative and 12, 24, and 36 months postoperative astigmatic components of the power vector represented by the two-dimensional vector (J0, J45) (J0=Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 180° and 90°; J45=Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 45° and 135°).
![Figure 3 Preoperative and 12, 24, and 36 months postoperative astigmatic components of the power vector represented by the two-dimensional vector (J0, J45) (J0=Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 180° and 90°; J45=Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 45° and 135°).](/cms/asset/94332b12-10af-4c84-b24a-bcf097dfd669/doph_a_171576_f0003_c.jpg)
![Figure 3 Preoperative and 12, 24, and 36 months postoperative astigmatic components of the power vector represented by the two-dimensional vector (J0, J45) (J0=Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 180° and 90°; J45=Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 45° and 135°).](/cms/asset/7a46b344-3782-42e8-8716-82dde619cedb/doph_a_171576_f0003a_c.jpg)
Figure 4 Improvement in refractive error and refraction stability for M, J0, and J45 during the 3 years of follow-up. Error bars represent the SD.
![Figure 4 Improvement in refractive error and refraction stability for M, J0, and J45 during the 3 years of follow-up. Error bars represent the SD.](/cms/asset/20ae7c00-13a2-4afd-aa83-9a682ad9c770/doph_a_171576_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5 Postoperative changes in CDVA at 12, 24, and 36 months follow-up.
![Figure 5 Postoperative changes in CDVA at 12, 24, and 36 months follow-up.](/cms/asset/75a2af74-bc41-4872-822a-7e49711fdac8/doph_a_171576_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6 Cumulative proportion of eyes having a given UDVA value at 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Preoperatively, all eyes had an UDVA worse than 20/63.
![Figure 6 Cumulative proportion of eyes having a given UDVA value at 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Preoperatively, all eyes had an UDVA worse than 20/63.](/cms/asset/177c2852-79aa-408a-bacb-f41efc5eb08e/doph_a_171576_f0006_c.jpg)
Figure 7 Cumulative proportion of eyes having a given CDVA value, both preoperatively and at 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.
![Figure 7 Cumulative proportion of eyes having a given CDVA value, both preoperatively and at 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.](/cms/asset/16ba9a53-d0a3-4646-8800-a18b4d57de70/doph_a_171576_f0007_c.jpg)
Figure 8 Evolution of the mean IOP (intraocular pressure), in mmHg for the whole follow-up period. Error bars represent the SD.
![Figure 8 Evolution of the mean IOP (intraocular pressure), in mmHg for the whole follow-up period. Error bars represent the SD.](/cms/asset/dd724c67-9138-4de7-808c-962477eed447/doph_a_171576_f0008_c.jpg)