Comparison of visual outcomes between bilateral trifocal intraocular lenses and combined bifocal intraocular lenses with different near addition

Stereopsis Following Implantation of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses: A Narrative Review

Recent advancements in cataract surgery have broadened its scope from mere vision restoration to include correction of refractive errors and presbyopia. This evolution has introduced multifocal and extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs), allowing enhanced vision across multiple distances. However, the influence of these advanced IOLs on stereopsis remains controversial. Factors influencing stereopsis after surgery include visual acuity, interocular differences, residual astigmatism, and the type of IOL, etc. Binocular vision integration and neuroadaptation further affect stereopsis, especially in cases of presbyopia-correcting IOLs. It is widely acknowledged that bilateral implantation of presbyopia-correcting IOLs yield superior stereopsis compared to unilateral implantation. However, there remains no consensus on whether binocular implantation of multifocal or monofocal IOLs provides superior stereopsis. Most studies suggest no significant difference in stereopsis between these two types of implants. Among different types of multifocal IOLs, refractive multifocal IOLs may offer better stereopsis than diffractive multifocal IOLs when implanted bilaterally. Emerging EDOF and hybrid multifocal-EDOF IOLs also demonstrate promising postoperative stereopsis. Additionally, a mix-and-match strategy with different types of IOLs implanted in each eye may result in interocular differences in visual acuity at certain distances, potentially affecting stereopsis. Nevertheless, with appropriate selection, most patients can achieve satisfactory postoperative stereopsis. This review synthesizes current literature on the effects of presbyopia-correcting IOLs on postoperative stereopsis recovery following cataract surgery. Studies on stereopsis outcomes with different IOLs have yielded mixed results, urging further investigation for optimized surgical strategies and patient outcomes.

Stereoacuity and Aniseikonia: Evaluation Before and After Bilateral Implantation of Three Types of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses in Uncomplicated Phacoemulsification with Due Consideration of Interocular Differences in Higher Order Aberrations, Axial Lengths, Refractive Errors, and Acuities

Purpose

To determine if the changes in stereoacuity and aniseikonia, following bilateral implantation of presbyopia correcting intraocular lenses could be predicted from preoperative measurements of higher order aberrations (HOAs), axial lengths (AL), refractive errors (RE) and corrected visual acuities (CVAs).

Patients and Methods

Stereoacuity (Randot tests, @6m & 40cm, in steps of 20 arcsecs") vertical and horizontal aniseikonia (Awaya test @6m, in steps of 1%) with best correction and HOAs (Shack-Hartmann aberrometer) were measured before, 3 and 6 months after uncomplicated bilateral phacoemulsification. Twenty patients (I) underwent a mix-and-match procedure (Tecnis MF, ZKB00 in one eye and ZLB00 in the other), 17 (II) were implanted with a trifocal (AT LISA 839 triMP) and 18 (III) with a one-piece diffractive (Synergy OU) intraocular lens. The resultant aniseikonia (AR) of vertical and horizontal pairs of aniseikonia measurements was calculated using the Pythagorean theorem. Twenty untreated age/gender matched cases were recruited as controls (IV).

Results

The key results (p < 0.001) were a) stereoacuity at distance (SAD) and near (SAN) improved, AR reduced in groups I, II & III remaining unchanged in group IV; b) some significant intergroup differences in SAD, SAN & AR were detected at postop; c) at 6 months postop, changes (Δ=pre- minus postoperative value) correlated with preoperative values (x). Linear regression revealed, I ΔSAD=0.66x-57.47 [0.832, ±66.4], ΔSAN=0.96x-34.59 [0.821, ±16.9], ΔAR=0.93AR-2.12 [0.795, ±1.4] II ΔSAD=0.79x-62.91 [0.916, ±38.1], ΔSAN=0.96x-31.49 [0.892, ±8.0], ΔAR=0.91AR-0.91 [0.839, ±1.3] III ΔSAD=0.67x-35.50 [0.991, ±23.7], ΔSAN=0.88x-38.51[0.988, ±10.6], ΔAR=0.86AR-0.96 [0.900, ±1.3]. Figures in parentheses are the corresponding rs and ±limits of agreement between actual and estimated values. Definitive overarching associations connecting interocular differences in HOAs, AL, RE, and CVAs with SAD, SAN and AR were not found.

Conclusion

Changes in stereoacuity and aniseikonia can be predicted using preoperative values. ΔSAN can be predicted within ±1, and ΔAR within ±2, scale divisions. In group III ΔSAD can be predicted within ±1, and in group I ±3, scale divisions.

Clinical outcome of a quadrifocal (trifocal) intraocular lens in Chinese patients: prospective, observational case series

PURPOSE

To report the visual outcomes and quality of vision and life after bilateral implantation of a single-piece trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in Chinese patients.

SETTING

Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational case series.

METHODS

Patients with bilateral implantation of AcrySof IQ PanOptix multifocal IOL were included. Distance, intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 cm) visual acuities (VAs) and contrast sensitivity (CS), defocus curve, preoperative higher-order aberration (HOA), dysphotopsia (0 to 5), satisfaction (1 to 5), spectacle independence, and quality of life were evaluated. The association between preoperative HOA and postoperative halos was also assessed.

RESULTS

54 eyes of 27 patients were included. The mean binocular distance, intermediate, and near uncorrected VA was -0.05 ± 0.06 (20/18), 0.06 ± 0.10 (20/23), and 0.04 ± 0.05 (20/22), respectively. No eyes lost more than 1 line of vision. Binocular CS was comparable with the monocular population norm of older adults. The defocus curve demonstrated that the binocular VA of 20/25 or better was achieved at a power of -3.00 to +0.50 diopters. The mean scores for halos, glare, and starbursts were 2.4 ± 1.4, 0.2 ± 0.8, and 1.4 ± 1.4 (of 5), respectively. The mean satisfaction score was 4.3 ± 0.7 (of 5). All the patients (100%) reported total spectacle independence. The mean vision-targeted composite score of the vision-related quality-of-life questionnaire was 97.2 ± 9.7 (of 100). Preoperative HOA was not associated with postoperative halos.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of the trifocal IOL provided satisfactory visual outcomes and quality of vision and life, which resulted in a high rate of spectacle independence.

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among people with presbyopia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years of age or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence according to the GRADE classification.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven studies conducted in Europe and Turkey with a total of 331 participants. All included studies assessed visual acuity using a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR chart). Of them, six (86%) studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (the primary outcome of this review). Some studies also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 55 to 74 years. Three studies reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all of the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study examined vision-related quality of life using the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) at six months, and suggested no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOLs (MD 1.41, 95% CI -1.78 to 4.60; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Of five studies reporting information on adverse events, two studies observed no intraoperative and postoperative complications or no posterior capsular opacification at six months. One study reported that glare and halos were similar to the preoperative measurements. One study reported that 4 (20%) and 10 (50%) participants had glare complaints at 6 months in trifocal and bifocal group, respectively (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.07; 40 participants). One study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal group and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy at one year. The certainty of the evidence for adverse events was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty of evidence that compared with bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there was no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity, quality of life, and vision-related adverse effects.

Stereopsis and visual acuity: Bilateral trifocal versus blended extended depth of focus and diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare stereopsis and visual acuity (VA) between bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL with a bifocal IOL.

METHODS

This is a non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 74 eyes of 37 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and bilateral implantation of AT LISA tri 839MP IOL (bilateral group; 21 patients) or blended implantation of Tecnis Symfony ZXR00 and Tecnis ZLB00 IOL (blended group; 16 patients). The primary outcomes were stereoacuity and binocular VA. The secondary outcomes were visual defocus curve, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Follow-up was performed 3 months after the surgery.

RESULTS

The mean near stereoacuity was 49.76 ± 22.67 and 120.63 ± 90.94 seconds of arc (arcsec) in the bilateral and blended groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Near stereoacuity was positively correlated with VA difference of two eyes (r = 0.896, P < 0.001). The mean binocular uncorrected visual acuity at 40 cm, 80 cm, 5 m, and corrected distance visual acuity at 5 m of the bilateral and blended groups was not statistically significant different. The bilateral group had better VA at a vergence from -2.5 to -4.0 D. Both groups obtained high quality of life and patient satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSION

The bilateral and blended groups achieved good binocular VA, quality of life, and high patient satisfaction. However, the near stereoacuity of the blended group was worse.

Comparative analysis of visual quality between unilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens

AIM

To compare visual quality after unilateral cataract surgery with implantation of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL.

METHODS

The prospective nonrandom, comparative study consisted of 60 eyes of 60 patients suffering unilateral cataract surgery with implantation of two different IOLs: AT LISA tri 839MP (30 eyes; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany) and LS-313 MF30 (30 eyes; Oculentis GmbH, Germany). Visual acuity, refractive outcome, contrast sensitivity, defocus curves, quality of vision, and optical phenomena were evaluated at 3mo postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences between groups in uncorrected distance visual acuity (P=0.13) and uncorrected near visual acuity (P=0.54). In contrast, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was better in trifocal group compared to the refractive multifocal group (P=0.02). No significant statistical between-group difference was detected in cylinder (P=0.43). Compared to trifocal group, spherical refraction and spherical equivalent in refractive multi focal group were more myopic (P<0.01). Under photopic conditions, no significant statistical differences were found between groups in contrast sensitivity at 3 and 6 cycles per degree (cpd). The refractive multifocal group performed better at 12 and 18 cpd than the trifocal group (P=0.01, P=0.034, respectively). The questionnaires of quality of vision and optical phenomena showed no differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Trifocal IOL is superior to refractive multifocal IOL in intermediate visual acuity. Rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL is more myopic in automated refraction and significantly better for the photopic contrast sensitivity at high frequency.

The effects of premium intraocular lenses on presbyopia treatments

Background

Presbyopia has become a global disease affecting the world's aging population. Among various treatments, cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have become the most popular and common methods of presbyopia correction. During the twentieth century, IOLs have underwent significant innovation and advancements to meet the patients' high demands for functional vision at all distances.

Main Text

To meet the increasing needs for excellent near and intermediate vision for daily activities, some premium IOLs with more than one focus have been developed, for example, the refractive MfIOLs, diffractive MfIOLs, extended depth of field (EDOF) IOLs, and accommodating IOLs (AIOLs) were introduced to meet this need. In addition, the add-on MfIOLs have been explored as promising supplementary IOLs for pseudophakic presbyopia. When selecting the MfIOLs, the IOLs' features, patients' characteristics, preoperative eye conditions, and treatment expectations should be considered.

Conclusions

In this review, we focus on the multifocal IOLs (MfIOLs) commonly used for presbyopia correction and systematically summarized their optical designs and clinical outcomes. More evidence-based studies are required to provide guidelines for MfIOL selection, provide maximum visual benefits, and develop personalized visual solutions in the future.

Effects of Rebamipide on Differences in Power and Axis of Corneal Astigmatism Between Two Intra-patient Keratometric Measurements in Dry Eyes

Introduction

This study investigated the effect of rebamipide on discrepancies in the power and axis of astigmatism between two intra-patient keratometric measurements in patients with dry eyes.

Methods

Fifty-eight dry eyes (with a short tear breakup time [TBUT] of less than 5 s) were analyzed. Patients with dry eye were treated with 2% rebamipide ophthalmic suspension (group R) or Mytear^® artificial tear ophthalmic solution (group M) for 4 weeks. TBUT and corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were evaluated at baseline and 4 weeks after treatment. Astigmatism power and axis were measured twice during both evaluations, at 5-min intervals. Baseline and post-treatment measurements were compared. Changes in TBUT and HOAs, and intra-patient discrepancies in astigmatism power and axis measurements were evaluated.

Results

HOAs showed significant positive correlations with intra-patient differences in astigmatism power and axis (P < 0.001). At the 4-week post-treatment follow-up, TBUT increased, and HOAs and astigmatism power and axis discrepancies decreased in a significant number of patients in group R (P < 0.001). In group M, only differences in astigmatism power decreased in a significant number of cases (P = 0.005). The degree of change in the intra-patient difference in astigmatism power between the two post-treatment keratometric measurements was significantly greater in group R than in group M (P < 0.001). In group R, baseline HOAs exhibited a significant positive correlation with changes in HOAs and intra-patient differences in astigmatism power (both P < 0.001). In group M, baseline HOAs were only significantly correlated with changes in intra-patient differences in astigmatism power (P = 0.030).

Conclusion

In dry eyes with short TBUTs, rebamipide significantly improved the corneal surface condition and significantly reduced intra-patient discrepancies in astigmatism power and axis measurements. Rebamipide may improve the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in dry eyes, particularly when toric IOLs are implanted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-021-00368-9.

This study investigated the effect of rebamipide on discrepancies in power and axis of astigmatism between two intra-patient keratometric measurements in patients with dry eyes. Short tear break-up time and corneal high-order aberrations were evaluated at baseline and 4 weeks after treatment. Astigmatism power and axis were measured twice at both evaluations. Baseline and post-treatment measurements were compared, and changes in short tear break-up time and high-order aberrations, as well as intra-patient discrepancies in astigmatism power and axis measurements, were evaluated. High-order aberrations at baseline showed significant positive correlations with intra-patient differences in astigmatism power and axis. Rebamipide significantly improved the corneal surface condition and significantly reduced intra-patient discrepancies in astigmatism power and axis measurements. Rebamipide may improve the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculations in dry eyes, particularly when toric intraocular lenses are implanted.

Effect of Refractive Astigmatism on All-Distance Visual Acuity in Eyes With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of refractive astigmatism on all-distance visual acuity (VA) in eyes implanted with a diffractive trifocal or bifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Fifty eyes with trifocal IOLs (PanOptix; Alcon) and 50 eyes with bifocal IOLs (ReSTOR +3D) were enrolled. After simulating astigmatism by adding cylindrical lenses of 0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.5 diopters (D), the corrected logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) VA was measured using an all-distance vision tester.

RESULTS

Mean VAs at most distances significantly worsened in proportion to the added astigmatism (P ≤ .0111) with no significant differences in near VA at 0.3 m in the trifocal group or in intermediate VA at 0.7 m in the bifocal group. Mean intermediate VA at 0.5 m was significantly better in the trifocal group than in the bifocal group when the astigmatism was 0.75 D or less (P ≤ .0472), but VA at distances of ∞ and 5.0 m were significantly worse in the trifocal group when the astigmatism was 0.5 D or more (P ≤ .0457). Useful mean logMAR VA of 0.20 was achieved at all distances when the astigmatism was 0.75 D or less in the trifocal group and 1.0 D or less in the bifocal group.

CONCLUSIONS

All-distance VA, particularly distance VA, worsened more in proportion to astigmatism with a trifocal IOL than with a bifocal IOL. Useful VA was achieved when the astigmatism was 0.75 D or less with a trifocal IOL, suggesting that astigmatism correction is necessary when astigmatism is more than 0.75 D.