Purpose: To identify the minimally required number of distances of visual acuity (VA) measurements for the reliable estimation of the visual acuity curve (VAC) and area of the curve (AoC) in presbyopia correction. Patients and Methods: The study was divided into a validation and a clinical phase with a total recruitment of 120 participants (120 eyes) who underwent uncomplicated pseudophakic presbyopia surgery with bilateral premium intraocular lenses (IOL) implantation. This study was conducted in the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece. Postoperative VAC and AoC were calculated with VA measurements taken at nine pre-defined distances. A mathematical model based on cubic spline interpolation was developed and assessed comparing the VAC and AoC values obtained using nine distances, with the ones predicted when a subset of VA measurements was inserted into the model. Results: Less than four measurements resulted in unreliable VAC and AoC assessment. Optimal distances for four to six VA measurements were determined. Mean error in the prediction of VAC and AoC of the clinical group ranged from 2.54 Letters/1.74% (6 measurements) to 2.90 letters/2.9% (4 measurements), respectively. Conclusion: Mathematical models that use cubic spline interpolation provide reliable VAC and AoC estimation, even with four VA measurements, when obtained at specific distances.

Background/Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the visual curve (ViC) and Area of the Curve (AoC) indices and the subjective perception of vision-related quality of life in patients who had undergone pseudophakic presbyopia correction. The central hypothesis was that AoC indices would show stronger correlations with vision-specific quality-of-life measures than single-point visual acuity (VA) assessments. Methods: A total of 100 patients who underwent bilateral pseudophakic presbyopia correction at the University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Greece, were included in the study. Six months following surgery, visual acuity was assessed at nine distances using the DDART tool. The AoC was calculated using VA data from four, five, six, and nine distances, and further categorized into Near Vision AoC (AoCN) and Distance Vision AoC (AoCD). Participants also completed the NEI-VFQ-25 questionnaire to evaluate their subjective vision-related quality of life. Results: Statistically significant correlations were observed between AoC values and NEI-VFQ-25 total scores (r = 0.668–0.682, p < 0.001), near activity subscale scores (r = 0.656–0.686, p < 0.001), and distance activity subscale scores (r = 0.733–0.758, p < 0.001). In all analyses, the AoC indices derived from ViC demonstrated stronger correlations with quality-of-life scores than those observed with AoC-derived DCT and single VA measurements, even when the AoC was computed using only four measurement points. Conclusions: The AoC metric is a superior indicator of vision-specific quality of life compared to isolated VA measurements. AoC effectively captures the multifaceted nature of functional vision following presbyopia correction.