Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses

Use of the perceptual point-spread function to assess dysphotopsias

Nowadays many patients are choosing EDOF or multifocal lenses for replacement of natural lens in cataract surgery. This can result in issues such as presence of dysphotopsias, namely halo and glare. In this work, we propose a new perimetry method to describe dysphotopsias in far-field region in a presence of bright, point-like light source. We constructed a custom device and designed measurement procedure for quantitative measurement of dysphotopias in the center of visual field and used it to examine patients with mild cataracts or implanted IOLs. Our approach may help in establishing an objective method to study and compare dysphotopsias.

Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

BACKGROUND

Cataract, defined as an opacity of the lens in one or both eyes, is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Cataract may initially be treated with new spectacles, but often surgery is required, which involves removing the cataract and placing a new artificial lens, usually made from hydrophobic acrylic. Recent advancements in intraocular lens (IOL) technology have led to the emergence of a diverse array of implantable lenses that aim to minimise spectacle dependence at all distances (near, intermediate, and distance). To assess the relative merits of these lenses, measurements of visual acuity are needed. Visual acuity is a measurement of the sharpness of vision at a distance of 6 metres (or 20 feet). Normal vision is 6/6 (or 20/20). The Jaegar eye card is used to measure near visual acuity. J1 is the smallest text and J2 is considered equivalent to 6/6 (or 20/20) for near vision.

OBJECTIVES

To compare visual outcomes after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) to those of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs. To produce a brief economic commentary summarising recent economic evaluations that compare trifocal IOLs with EDOF IOLs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries on 15 June 2022. For our economic evaluation, we also searched MEDLINE and Embase using economic search filters to 15 June 2022, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) from 1968 up to and including 31 December 2014. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing trifocal and EDOF IOLs in adults undergoing cataract surgery. We did not include studies involving people receiving IOLs for correction of refractive error alone (or refractive lens exchange in the absence of cataract).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from the reports. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies that compared trifocal and EDOF lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. Three trifocal lenses (AcrySof IQ PanOptix, ATLISA Tri 839MP, FineVision Micro F) and one EDOF lens (TECNIS Symfony ZXR00) were evaluated. The studies took place in Europe and North America. Follow-up ranged from three to six months. Of the 239 enroled participants, 233 (466 eyes) completed follow-up and were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 68.2 years, and 64% of participants were female. In general, the risk of bias in the studies was unclear as methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported, and we judged one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as low, downgrading for the risk of bias and for imprecision. In two studies involving a total of 254 people, there was little or no difference between trifocal and EDOF lenses for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6. Sixty per cent of participants in both groups had uncorrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.88 to 1.27). Thirty-one per cent of the trifocal group and 38% of the EDOF group had corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39). In one study of 60 people, there were fewer cases of uncorrected near visual acuity worse than J2 in the trifocal group (3%) compared with the EDOF group (30%) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65). In two studies, participants were asked about spectacle independence using subjective questionnaires. There was no evidence of either lens type being superior. One further study of 60 participants reported, "overall, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence", but did not categorise this by lens type. All studies included postoperative patient-reported visual function, which was measured using different questionnaires. Irrespective of the questionnaire used, both types of lenses scored well, and there was little evidence of any important differences between them. Two studies included patient-reported ocular aberrations (glare and halos). The outcomes were reported in different ways and could not be pooled; individually, these studies were too small to detect meaningful differences in glare and halos between groups. One study reported no surgical complications. Three studies did not mention surgical complications. One study reported YAG capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification (PCO) in one participant (one eye) in each group. One study reported no PCO. Two studies did not report PCO. One study reported that three participants (one trifocal and two EDOF) underwent laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) to correct residual myopic refractive error or astigmatism. One study reported a subset of participants who were considering laser enhancement at the end of the study period (nine trifocal and two EDOF). Two studies did not report laser enhancement rates. No economic evaluation studies were identified for inclusion in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Distance visual acuity after cataract surgery may be similar whether the lenses implanted are trifocal IOLs or EDOF (TECNIS Symfony) IOLs. People receiving trifocal IOLs may achieve better near vision and may be less dependent on spectacles for near vision. Both lenses were reported to have adverse subjective visual phenomena, such as glare and halos, with no meaningful difference detected between lenses.

Comparison of visual performance between bifocal and extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lenses

We compared the visual performance of a bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (ZMB00) and an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL (ZXR00V) by evaluating postoperative parameters at 10 weeks after the last surgery in cataract patients who underwent bilateral ZMB00 or ZXR00V implantation between 2011 and 2020. The right and left lenses were implanted within 3 months of each other. The study enrolled 1536 eyes of 768 patients; the ZMB00 group comprised 1326 eyes of 663 patients (age: 67.0 ± 7.8 years; female/male, 518/145), and the ZXR00V group comprised 210 eyes of 105 patients (age: 67.8 ± 6.9 years; female/male, 39/66). A linear mixed-effects model using data for both eyes, with strict adjustments for sex, age, subjective refraction spherical equivalent, subjective refraction cylinder, corneal astigmatism, axial length, corneal higher-order aberrations and pupil diameter, ensured statistical validity. Uncorrected near visual acuity, corrected near visual acuity, and near spectacle independence were significantly better in the ZMB00 group (p<0.00068, Wald test) than in the ZXR00V group. Contrast sensitivity (visual angle of the test target: 4.0°/2.5°/1.6°/1.0°/0.7°) and contrast sensitivity with glare (4.0°/2.5°/1.6°/1.0°/0.7°) were significantly better in the ZXR00V group (p<0.00068, Wald test) than in the ZMB00 group. Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity with glare (6.3°), and 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) scores for General Vision were slightly but significantly better in the ZXR00V group than in the ZMB00 group (p<0.05, Wald test). At high-performance levels, the two IOL groups had different characteristics regarding various visual performance parameters.

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.

Comparisons of visual outcomes between bilateral implantation and mix-and-match implantation of three types intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare binocular static visual acuity (SVA), stereopsis, contrast sensitivity (CS) and dynamic visual acuity (DVA) of 5 combinations of bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), trifocal IOLs and extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in age-related cataract patients.

METHODS

Two hundred and ninety-two eyes of 146 patients who underwent cataract surgery in the ophthalmology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were involved. Subgroups included group MM (33patients, bilaterally bifocal IOL, ZMB00), group TT (31patients, bilaterally trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP), group XX (34patients, bilaterally EDOF IOL, ZXR00), group MX (25patients, bifocal IOL, ZMB00 + EDOF IOL, ZXR00) and group TX (23patients, trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP + EDOF IOL, ZXR00). The uncorrected SVAs (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA), uncorrected DVAs (UDDVA, UIDVA and UNDVA), near and distance stereopsis, and CS were assessed 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Subgroups of TT, XX, MX and TX showed better UIVA than MM (bP = 0.039, 0.021, 0.035 and 0.037, respectively). MX showed better UNVA than MM and TX (bP = 0.031 and 0.013, respectively). MX group had the optimal outcomes of both near and distance stereopsis. In the UDDVA, XX group and MX group showed better outcomes than TX group at 24 fps (frames per second) (bP = 0.019 and 0.023, respectively). XX group and MX group showed optimal outcomes at all speeds of UIDVA (P = 0.001, 0.005, 0.003 and 0.005, respectively). As the speed increased, the XX group and the MX group showed better UNDVA than the MM group and the TT group (P = 0.019, 0.002 and 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Mix-and-match implantation of bifocal IOLs and EDOF IOLs provides excellent and stable binocular visual outcomes including SVA, stereopsis and DVA in distant and near distances.

Depth of field and visual performance after implantation of a new hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens

Purpose

To assess the depth of field (DOF) by means of defocus curve analysis applying different visual acuity criteria in patients following cataract surgery and bilateral implantation of a new trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

Fifty eyes of 25 consecutive patients who underwent implantation of the Asqelio™ trifocal IOL (AST Products Inc., USA) were enrolled in this observational prospective study. Monocular subjective DOF was obtained from defocus curves with absolute and relative criteria of tolerance for different visual acuities values. Patient’s visual satisfaction, postoperative refraction and visual acuity at far, intermediate (67 cm) and near (40 cm) distances were also measured at 1 and 3-months post-surgery. Analysis of variance was used to assess differences in refractive error after the surgical procedure, and paired t-tests were used to assess differences in VA. Patient satisfaction results were reported as percentages.

Results

Spherical equivalent was 0.05 ± 0.23 D and residual cylinder 0.01 ± 0.23 D 3-months after the surgery. Absolute DOF obtained was 3.29 ± 0.91 D considering 0.1 LogMAR as cut-off value, and 4.82 ± 0.69 D when 0.3 logMAR as cutoff value. Relative DOF considering a drop of 0.1 logMAR from maximum visual acuity was 2.57 ± 0.82 D, and 1.27 ± 0.70 D when a drop of 0.04 logMAR was considered. Visual acuities obtained 3-months after the surgery were 0.03 ± 0.13, − 0.05 ± 0.06, 0.03 ± 0.08 and 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR for uncorrected and best-corrected for distance, and best distance-corrected for intermediate and near distances, respectively. Average response to visual satisfaction queries was 8.24/10 at distance, 8.04/10 at intermediate, and 7.88/10 at near.

Conclusions

Patients implanted with this trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in visual acuity at different distances providing wide absolute and relative DOF values. The outcomes demonstrate that this lens is predictable yielding good patient satisfaction rates.

Comparison of Patient Outcomes following Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The purpose is to compare the outcomes of implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (TIOLs) and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov was conducted in March 2020 to identify relevant studies. A meta-analysis of the results was performed. Patients implanted with EDOF IOLs or TIOLs in previous studies were included. The primary outcomes of the study were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and defocus curve.

Results

TIOLs and EDOF IOLs provided comparable binocular UDVA (MD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.04, 0.03, logMAR). However, EDOF IOLs provided better UIVA (MD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.01, logMAR) and worse UNVA (MD: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.14, logMAR) than TIOLs. Fewer patients achieved spectacle independence after implantation of EDOF IOLs (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.87) than after implantation of TIOLs, especially for near vision (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic or mesopic conditions with both IOLs. Patient satisfaction after implantation of both IOLs was high.

Conclusion

EDOF IOLs and TIOLs provide comparable distance vision. However, EDOF IOLs provide better intermediate vision and worse near vision than TIOLs. The advantages of EDOF IOLs over TIOLs in terms of CS, aberrations, and visual disturbance are not significant. Patients are satisfied with both types of IOLs.

One-year post-operative comparison of visual function and patient satisfaction with trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual performance with trifocal and extended depth of focus IOL at 1 year post-operatively.

SETTING

BMI Southend Hospital.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

METHODS

An age-matched cohort of forty subjects bilaterally implanted with the AT LISA 839MP trifocal IOL (20 patients, 40 eyes) and the Tecnis Symfony extended depth of focus IOL (20 patients, 40 eyes) were assessed at 3-6 months and 12-18 months post-operatively. Primary outcome measures were distance (6 m), intermediate (70 cm), near visual acuity (40 cm), and analysis of defocus profiles. Secondary outcomes included contrast sensitivity, Radner reading performance, quality of vision and assessment of halos.

RESULTS

Distance visual acuity (VA) and defocus areas were similar (p = 0.07). No significant difference in intermediate VA was noted but the intermediate area of focus was greater in the EDoF (0.31 ± 0.12 LogMAR*m^-1) compared to the trifocal (0.22 ± 0.08LogMAR*m^-1) (p = 0.02). However, all near metrics were significantly better in the trifocal group. 80% of trifocal subjects were spectacle independent compared to 50% EDoF subjects. Quality of vision questionnaire found no significant differences between groups, however halo scores were greater at 3-6 months in the trifocal group (p < 0.01) but no differences were noted at 12-18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Near vision is significantly better for the trifocal, thus greater levels of spectacle independence. The range of intermediate vision was greater for the EDoF but no difference in intermediate VA. In the early period, differences in contrast sensitivity and halo size/intensity were noted, however, by one-year these measures were not significantly different.

Spherical aberration for expanding depth of focus

The increase in the depth of focus (DoF) for the treatment of presbyopia or cataracts is a topic of great interest for anterior segment surgeons who have seen how new surgical possibilities to achieve DoF enlargement have emerged. Nowadays, several technologies to extend the DoF are available, from corneal laser refractive surgery procedures in presbyopia to intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract or refractive lens exchange. Some of these procedures are based on aspheric profiles, either in the cornea or in the IOL, which modulate the spherical aberration (SA) and, therefore, extend the light energy on different focal planes. The aim of this narrative review was to give an overall picture about the reasons why there is not a general solution persistent along time of SA induction to extend DoF, especially considering that SA depends on pupil diameter and this decreases with age.

Comparison Between an Intraocular Lens With Extended Depth of Focus (Tecnis Symfony ZXR00) and a New Monofocal Intraocular Lens With Enhanced Intermediate Vision (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00)

PURPOSE

This study compared the extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) (ZXR00; Tecnis Symfony, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, US) to a novel, higher-order aspheric monofocal IOL (ICB00; Tecnis Eyhance, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, US) which uses the same platform and material.

METHODS

Medical records of patients undergoing cataract surgery with ZXR00 or ICB00 implantation between March 2020 and January 2021 and with the data available for the 3-month visit were reviewed. The uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA); corrected distance VA; and optical quality parameters were the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

Among the 174 enrolled patients, 72 and 102 received the ZXR00 and ICB00, respectively. The average patient ages were 59.6 ± 10.6 (range: 49 to 70) and 65.2 ± 8.2 (range: 45 to 82) years in the ZXR00 and ICB00 groups, respectively, with significantly older patients in the ICB00 group. The other baseline parameters were not different for the 2 groups. Compared to the ICB00 group, the ZXR00 group showed markedly superior near VA (P < 0.05) at 3 months postoperatively. In terms of optical quality, ICB00 was, statistically, significantly superior to ZXR00.

CONCLUSIONS

The ZXR00 showed remarkable near vision and defocus curve smoothness, while the ICB00 achieved better optical quality. The 2 IOLs had comparable distance and intermediate vision.

Citation network analysis of the various types of multifocal intraocular lenses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The implantation of multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) has increased in recent years, allowing patients to achieve good quality vision at all distances, independence from use of glasses, and consequently, an increase in quality of life. The main purpose of this study was to analyse the links between publications and authors via citation networks, as well to as identify the different research areas and determine the most cited publications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The publication search was performed through the Web of Science database, using the terms «Multifocal intraocular lens», «Bifocal intraocular lens», «Trifocal intraocular lens», «Diffractive intraocular lens», «Refractive intraocular lens», «Accommodative intraocular lens» and «Extended depth of focus intraocular lens», for a time interval from 1989 to August 2020. The software used to analyse the publications was the Citation Network Explorer.

RESULTS

A total of 1293 publications were found, with 11,730 citations generated in the network, and 2019 had the highest number of publications of any year. The most cited publication was «European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens» by Kohnen et al., published in 2006. Four groups about different research areas in this field were found using the Clustering functionality: visual quality, IOL designs, ocular aberrations, or defocus curves.

CONCLUSIONS

The citation network offers an objective and comprehensive analysis of the main articles on the different designs and classes of multifocal IOL.

Non-diffractive wavefront shaping extended depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lens: visual performance and patient-reported outcome

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual performance and patient-reported outcomes after bilateral implantation of new non-diffractive wavefront shaping extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-arm, single-center study.

METHODS

Patient population: We included 16 patients (32 eyes) who received bilateral implantation of a non-diffractive wavefront shaping EDOF IOL (AcrySof® IQ Vivity®, Alcon Research, TX, USA). Target refraction in both eyes was emmetropia. Observation procedure: Monocular and binocular uncorrected (UCVA) and distance-corrected (DCVA) visual acuity (VA), refractive outcome, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (CS) were evaluated 3 months after surgery with a questionnaire on optical phenomena and spectacle independence. Main Outcome measure: Three months postoperative monocular and binocular UCVA and DCVA (logMAR); defocus curve; CS; and quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire results.

RESULTS

Mean spherical equivalent was -0.16 ± 0.37 D 3 month postoperatively. Binocular UDVA at distance, intermediate, and near was 0.01 ± 0.05 logMAR at 4m, 0.05 ± 0.05 logMAR at 80cm, 0.07 ± 0.06 logMAR at 66cm, and 0.25 ± 0.11 logMAR at 40cm, respectively. Despite some minor optical phenomena, 88% of patients would choose the same lens. 63% of patients reported no optical phenomena at all. Contrast sensitivity was 1.25 ± 0.41 logCS (photopic), 0.96 ± 0.24 logCS (mesopic) and 0.93 ± 0.24 (mesopic + glare).

CONCLUSIONS

This non-diffractive wavefront shaping EDOF IOL provides good VA at far and intermediate distance and functional near VA. It showed good QoV and CS, and high spectacle independence for distance and intermediate vision with significantly less optical phenomena than with other EDOF or MIOLs.

Preliminary Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of a Novel Visual Rehabilitation Program in Patients Implanted with Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses: A Blinded Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

The authors of this study evaluated the potential benefit on visual performance of a novel 3 week visual rehabilitation program based on the use of Gabor patches in patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery with the implantation of two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). A total of 30 patients were randomly assigned to two groups: a study group (15 patients) that used a videogame based on Gabor patches and a placebo group (15 patients) that used a videogame without specific stimuli for improving visual performance. No statistically significant differences between groups were found in distance, intermediate, and near post-training visual acuity (p ≥ 0.15). Significantly better distance contrast sensitivity (CS) was found for the spatial frequencies of 6 (p = 0.02) and 12 cpd (p = 0.01) in the study group. Likewise, significantly better values of near CS were found in the study group compared to the placebo group for the spatial frequency of 1.5 cpd (p = 0.02). In conclusion, a 3 week visual rehabilitation program based on the use of Gabor patches in the immediate postoperative period after the bilateral implantation of trifocal diffractive IOLs seems to be beneficial for improving both distance and near visual performance achieved with the implant.

Visual performance and patient satisfaction after implantation of extended range-of-vision IOLs: bilateral implantation vs 2 different mix-and-match approaches

PURPOSE

To compare the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of an extended range-of-vision intraocular lens (ERoV IOL) (Tecnis Symfony) vs 2 different mix-and-match approaches combining the ERoV IOL with bifocal IOLs.

SETTING

Glory Seoul Eye Clinic, Seoul, South Korea.

DESIGN

Prospective observational nonrandomized comparative study.

METHODS

Patients undergoing cataract surgery were distributed into 3 groups based on their lifestyle and near visual demands: bilateral Symfony IOL, mix-and-match Symfony IOL with bifocal +3.25 diopters (D) IOL, and Symfony IOL with bifocal +4.0 D IOL. Binocular uncorrected visual acuity for distance, intermediate, and near, manifest refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and subjective visual perception and satisfaction (photic phenomena, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction) were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The study comprised 103 people (206 eyes). There were no significant differences for uncorrected visual acuity between groups for distance, intermediate, and near vision (P > .05). Contrast sensitivity under low and high luminance conditions was not different between groups (P > .05). Influence of glare on image perception was found to reduce contrast sensitivity more in the bilateral group for smaller target sizes (P < .05). Patients implanted bilaterally with Symfony IOLs reported photic phenomena more frequently than those implanted with the mix-and-match combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

All combinations evaluated provided good visual outcomes for distance, intermediate, and near. The lower incidence of photic phenomena reported by patients, and the lower reduction on contrast sensitivity for low illumination levels with the presence of glare, suggest that mix-and-match approaches might be a better option compared with bilateral implantation of ERoV IOLs.

COMPARISON OF REFRACTIVE AND VISUAL OUTCOMES OF THREE PRESBYOPIA-CORRECTING INTRAOCULAR LENSES

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of three different types of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal.

DESIGN

Prospective comparative case series.

METHODS

180 eyes of 90 patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery with implantation of one of these trifocal IOLs were enrolled: Tecnis Synergy (J&J Vision) (Synergy group, 30 patients), Acrysof PanOptix (Alcon) (PanOptix group, 30 patients), and POD F (PhysIOL) (Finevision group, 30 patients). The outcomes in terms of distance, intermediate and near visual acuity (VA), refraction, defocus curve, photic phenomena and spectacle independence were evaluated at 3-months follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between groups in monocular distance-corrected intermediate (Synergy 0.04±0.11, PanOptix 0.05±0.09, Finevision 0.08±0.10; p=0.107) and near VA (0.01±0.08, 0.01±0.06, 0.04±0.10; p=0.186). Likewise, no significant differences among groups were found in binocular uncorrected distance (p=0.572), near (p=0.929) and intermediate VA (p=0.327). In contrast, significant differences between groups were found in the visual acuity for the vergence demands of -0.50, -1.00, -2.00, -3.50 and -4.00 D (p≤0.045). No significant differences among groups were found either in the frequency, severity and bothersomeness of different disturbing visual symptoms, including glare and haloes (p≥0.129). More than 96% of patients in all groups did not require the use of spectacles at any distance after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The three trifocal IOLs evaluated provide an effective visual rehabilitation with minimal incidence of photic phenomena. A trend to obtain a wider range of functional focus was observed with the Tecnis Synergy IOL.

Depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes implanted with different type of presbyopia-correcting IOLS

To evaluate depth of field (DOF) provided by different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) designs, comparing the results obtained using different criteria for defining the defocus tolerance. A total of 150 eyes undergoing cataract surgery were enrolled and divided into 6 groups depending on the IOL implanted: AT.LISA Tri (Carl Zeiss Meditec), FineVision (PhysIOL), PanOptix (Alcon Laboratories), Tecnis Symfony (Johnson & Johnson Vision), Miniwell (SIFI MedTech) and Tecnis Synergy (Johnson & Johnson Vision). Subjective DOF was obtained from defocus curves with absolute and relative criteria of tolerance of 0.1 logMAR. Aberrometry was also measured and the visual strehl optical transference function (VSOTF) with percentage of degradation of 90%, 80% and 60% was used to quantify objectively the DOF. Tecnis Symfony, Tecnis Synergy and Panoptix IOL groups showed better subjective and objective DOF compared to the rest of IOL groups, being these differences statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). Comparison between subjective and objective DOF showed that subjective measures were higher for all IOLs, being also these differences statistically significant for all groups (p < 0.001). A moderate significant correlation was found between absolute subjective criteria and VSOTF60% (r = 0.73, p < 0.05). Objective and subjective measures of DOF are not comparable due to differences in methodologies and criterions to define the level of degradation tolerance. Nevertheless, both objective and subjective measures showed a trend to a greater DOF for Tecnis Symfony and Tecnis Synergy IOLs compared to most of trifocal diffractive designs, with the exception of PanOptix.

Clinical Outcomes With a New Continuous Range of Vision Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes including patient-reported outcome measures in a sample of eyes undergoing bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of a new model of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

This non-randomized prospective case series enrolled 206 eyes of 103 patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of the TECNIS Synergy IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision). High and low contrast visual acuity, refractive, defocus curve, and patient-reported visual performance (Catquest-9SF questionnaire) outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 96.1% (99 of 103) and 91.3% (94 of 103) of patients achieved binocular postoperative uncorrected distance (UDVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA) of 0.00 logMAR (20/20), respectively. Mean postoperative mesopic UNVA for both eyes was 0.14 ± 0.03 logMAR. Likewise, mean binocular UDVA and UNVA were 0.00 ± 0.03 and 0.04 ± 0.02 logMAR. An almost flat mean defocus curve was obtained, with visual acuities between 0.00 and 0.10 logMAR for most defocus levels in both eyes. A reduction of contrast led to a limited but statistically significant change in UNVA in both eyes (P < .001). The Rasch calibrated scoring of item 2 and the Rasch calibrated mean score of the Catquest-9SF questionnaire increased significantly with surgery (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This new presbyopia-correcting IOL provides a continuous range of functional focus, with a limited deterioration under mesopic conditions, which is perceived as a satisfactory outcome by the patient if proper patient selection is performed. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(4):256-262.].

Clinical Outcomes with a Novel Extended Depth of Focus Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lens: Pilot Study

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of cataract surgery with implantation of a novel model of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

Pilot case series enrolling a total of 27 eyes of 16 patients (49 to 84 years) undergoing uncomplicated phacoemulsification cataract surgery with implantation of the EDOF IOL Synthesis PLUS (Cutting Edge, Montpellier, France). Near (UNVA, uncorrected near visual acuity; DCNVA, distance-corrected near visual acuity) and distance visual acuity (uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity, UDVA and CDVA), monocular defocus curve and refractive outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up.

Results

Mean postoperative UDVA, UNVA and DCNVA were 0.11±0.17, 0.14±0.22 and 0.37±0.36 logMAR, respectively. A total of 84.6%, 91.7%, and 96.3% of eyes achieved postoperative UDVA, UNVA and CDVA of 0.20 logMAR or better. A total of 78.6% of eyes achieved postoperative DCNVA of 0.30 logMAR or better. Mean postoperative spherical equivalent was −0.76±0.53 D. The distance-corrected visual acuity was maintained on average over a value of 0.30 logMAR for the range of defocus levels between +1.00 and −1.50 D.

Conclusion

The implantation of the Synthesis plus EDOF IOL after cataract surgery seems to provide functional levels of distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. The near visual performance with this new IOL might be significantly enhanced using a micro-monovision approach. The results of this pilot study should be confirmed in future clinical trials.

Citation network analysis of the various types of multifocal intraocular lenses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The implantation of multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) has increased in recent years, allowing patients to achieve good quality vision at all distances, independence from use of glasses, and consequently, an increase in quality of life. The main purpose of this study was to analyse the links between publications and authors via citation networks, as well to as identify the different research areas and determine the most cited publications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The publication search was performed through the Web of Science database, using the terms «Multifocal intraocular lens», «Bifocal intraocular lens», «Trifocal intraocular lens», «Diffractive intraocular lens», «Refractive intraocular lens», «Accommodative intraocular lens» and «Extended depth of focus intraocular lens», for a time interval from 1989 to August 2020. The software used to analyse the publications was the Citation Network Explorer.

RESULTS

A total of 1293 publications were found, with 11730 citations generated in the network, and 2019 had the highest number of publications of any year. The most cited publication was «European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens» by Kohnen et al., published in 2006. Four groups about different research areas in this field were found using the Clustering functionality: visual quality, IOL designs, ocular aberrations, or defocus curves.

CONCLUSIONS

The citation network offers an objective and comprehensive analysis of the main articles on the different designs and classes of multifocal IOL.

Total Depth of Focus of Five Premium Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the in vitro optical performance of five premium multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), including a single-valued metric that shows the total range of distances where a multifocal IOL generates an acceptable image quality.

METHODS

Through-focus modulation transfer function (MTF) and the image of a United States Air Force target were obtained for a 3-mm pupil and a wavelength of 546 nm in five multifocal IOLs (Tecnis Symfony [Johnson & Johnson], FineVision Micro F [PhysIOL], Acrysof IQ PanOptix [Novartis], and Artis Symbiose Mid and Plus [Cristalens Industrie] multifocal IOLs). Total depth of focus (TDOF) is computed by adding the vergence intervals where the through-focus MTF at 50 cycles/mm is 0.15 or greater.

RESULTS

Due to their different optical designs (bifocal, trifocal, or extended depth of focus), energy is distributed differently between far, intermediate, and near focus for each multifocal IOL. The light distribution of the Symbiose Mid and Plus multifocal IOLs was similar, concentrating the energy into far focus and the intermediate into near focus, but extending the intermediate focus more (Plus) or less (Mid) toward the near focus. TDOFs were: 1.58 diopters [D] (FineVision); 1.71 D (Tecnis Symfony); 1.73 D (Artis Symbiose Plus); 1.74 D (Artis Symbiose Mid); and 1.90 D (Acrysof IQ PanOptix).

CONCLUSIONS

TDOFs were similar between multifocal IOLs with a maximum difference of 0.32 D and mean value of 1.73 D. The combination of the Symbiose Mid and Plus IOLs can theoretically provide a TDOF of 2.90 D in case one is implanted in one eye and the other in the fellow eye. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(9):578-584.].