Comparison of the intermediate distance of a trifocal IOL with an extended depth-of-focus IOL: results of a prospective randomized trial

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced monofocal IOLs, post-cataract surgery through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from the past 5 years. Parameters such as binocular visual acuities, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and optical quality were used to evaluate efficacy and safety. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17.0 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comprising 2465 subjects were included. Trifocal IOLs exhibited superior uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) compared to monofocal IOLs (MD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22). Both trifocal (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOLs group MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.06) and EDOF IOLs (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.09) showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) than monofocal IOLs. Trifocal IOLs ranked highest in spectacle independence at various distances (AT LISAtri 839MP group: SUCRA 97.5% for distance, 80.7% for intermediate; AcrySof IQ PanOptix group: SUCRA 83.0% for near).

CONCLUSIONS

For cataract patients who want to treat presbyopia, trifocal IOLs demonstrated better visual acuity and spectacle independence at near distances. Different types of trifocal IOL characteristics differ. EDOF and enhanced monofocal IOLs have improved visual quality at intermediate distances.Therefore, It is very important to select the appropriate IOLs based on the lens characteristics and patient needs.

Visual performance and patient preference with bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus or combined implantation of an extended depth of focus/trifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

Evaluate postoperative visual performance in patients with bilaterally implanted AT LARA or AT LARA/AT LISA tri (Carl Zeiss AG, Jena, Germany) intraocular lenses.

METHODS

Multicentered, comparative, open-label, retrospective/prospective study. Post-IOL implantation, patients were prospectively enrolled into this study; preoperative patient data were collected retrospectively. Follow-up was at 2-4 and 5-8 months post-surgery. The primary endpoint was binocular best corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA). The study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05462067).

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients (142 eyes) were enrolled; 67 patients (134 eyes) have 5-8 months data. The mean binocular CDVA at 2-4 months was -0.10 ± 0.06 logMAR in the bilateral AT LARA group ("bilateral") and -0.11 ± 0.09 logMAR in the combined implantation AT LARA/ AT LISA tri group ("combined implantation"); (P = 0.4856). At 5-8 months, mean binocular CDVA was -0.13 ± 0.06 logMAR in the bilateral group and -0.11 ± 0.09 in the combined implantation group (P = 0.4003). At 5-8 months, more eyes in the bilateral group attained 0.2 logMAR or better binocular uncorrected intermediate VA (UIVA; 67 cm) than those in the combined implantation group (100% vs. 94%, respectively). The bilateral group achieved a mean of 0.24 ± 0.11 logMAR in uncorrected near VA (UCNVA), compared to a mean of 0.16 ± 0.12 logMAR in the combined implantation group at 5-8 months (P = 0.0041).

CONCLUSIONS

A combined implantation approach (AT LARA in the distance dominant eye/AT LISA tri in the non-dominant eye) produced similar CDVA outcomes but better UCNVA as bilateral implantation with the AT LARA. UIVA was comparable between groups. No new safety concerns were reported.

Binocular Visual Outcomes Comparison of Two Trifocal Intraocular Lenses in High-Myopic Cataract Patients: A 1-Year Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative visual outcomes and quality of vision obtained with 2 types of diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients with highly myopic cataracts.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Patients with high-myopic cataracts were randomized to binocular implantation of either the TFNT00 (n = 27) or the 839 MP (n = 28) trifocal IOLs at 3 surgery centers in China and were followed up for 1 year. Postoperative uncorrected distance, uncorrected intermediate, and uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected distance visual acuity were measured. The defocus curve, high-order aberrations, modulation transfer function curve, Strehl ratio, and reading ability were compared between both groups. The functional vision and incidence of photic phenomena were surveyed using questionnaires.

RESULTS

Visual acuity at all ranges of vision was significantly improved in both groups. The TFNT00 group showed superior uncorrected intermediate visual acuity to that in the 839 MP group (P = .013). Reading ability at 40 and 60 cm was similar in both groups (P ≥ .05), whereas the preferred reading distances for near and intermediate were significantly different. The TFNT00 group had a significantly higher mean Visual Function Index 14 score, lower incidence of photic phenomena, and less posterior capsular opacity than the 839 MP group.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral implantation of both types of trifocal IOLs in patients with high-myopic cataracts provided good whole-course visual restoration, although recognition of fine Chinese characters remained impeded. As compared with 839 MP IOL, TFNT00 IOL resulted in greater patient satisfaction in intermediate activities, with a lower photic phenomena incidence.

Visual performance and subjective experience 3 months and 12 months after combined implantation of 2 new complementary continuous phase multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To assess the 3-month and 12-month postoperative visual performance and subjective quality of vision (QoV) after combined implantation of complementary continuous phase multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Private practice, United Kingdom.

DESIGN

Case series.

METHODS

The study enrolled 44 patients undergoing phacoemulsification with implantation of an Artis Symbiose Mid in the dominant eye and an Artis Symbiose Plus in the nondominant eye. Refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), electronic reading desk, and a QoV questionnaire were evaluated at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean binocular UDVA was -0.06 ± 0.08 logMAR and -0.07 ± 0.06 logMAR at 3 months and 12 months ( P = .097), respectively. The mean binocular UIVA was 0.03 ± 0.13 logMAR and 0.03 ± 0.10 logMAR ( P = 1.0), respectively. The mean binocular UNVA was 0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR and 0.07 ± 0.08 logMAR ( P = .875), respectively. There was a significant improvement in QoV for both day and night between 3 and 12 months, with a significant reduction in halos at 12 months. Spectacle independence was reported in 93.2% of cases at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The Artis Symbiose Mid and Plus IOL combined implantation provided an excellent range of uncorrected vision at 3 and 12 months. There was a significant improvement in QoV and less halos at 12 months. This IOL combination provided very high rates of complete spectacle independence.

Visual Performance at All Distances and Patient Satisfaction With a New Aspheric Inverted Meniscus Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual performance, spectacle independence, and quality of vision of new intraocular lenses (IOLs) for presbyopia correction with an aspheric inverted meniscus optical design (ArtIOLs; Voptica SL) in patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 60 eyes from 30 patients implanted bilaterally with Art40 and Art70 IOLs were included. These new IOLs were designed with an inverted meniscus shape to improve the peripheral performance and with aspheric surfaces to induce different amounts of negative spherical aberration in each IOL model. Distance-corrected and uncorrected through-focus visual acuities and contrast sensitivity were measured 1 to 3 months after surgery. Twenty-eight patients answered Patient Reported Spectacle Independence (PRSIQ) and Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Mean monocular (Art40 and Art70) and binocular (Art40/70) corrected distance visual acuities (CDVA) were zero logMAR (20/20). Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at far, intermediate (66 cm), and near (40 cm) distances was 0.00 ± 0.01, 0.01 ± 0.03, and 0.09 ± 0.09 logMAR, respectively. Spectacle independence was achieved by 24 (85.7%) patients for far and intermediate vision and 20 patients (71.4%) for near vision. The number of patients never reporting experiencing glare, halos, and starbursts was 28, 27, and 26 (100%, 96.4%, and 92.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The binocular combination of two ArtIOLs models (Art40 and Art70) significantly extended the depth of focus up to at least 40 cm. This combination resulted in a full range of vision with a high level of spectacle independence and without the compromise of halos or dysphotopsias. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(9):582-588.].

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.

Optical performance of a new design of a trifocal intraocular lens based on the Devil's diffractive lens

In this work, we propose a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens design with focus extension, conceived to provide a high visual performance at intermediate distances. This design is based on a fractal structure known as the "Devil's staircase". To assess its optical performance, numerical simulations have been performed with a ray tracing program using the Liou-Brennan model eye under polychromatic illumination. The simulated through the focus visual acuity was the merit function employed to test its pupil-dependence and its behavior against decentering. A qualitative assessment of the multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) was also performed experimentally with an adaptive optics visual simulator. The experimental results confirm our numerical predictions. We found that our MIOL design has a trifocal profile, which is very robust to decentration and has low degree of pupil dependence. It performs better at intermediate distances than at near distances and, for a pupil diameter of 3 mm, it works like an EDoF lens over almost the entire defocus range.

Visual and patient-reported outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens in highly myopic eyes: a prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the visual and patient-reported outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in highly myopic eyes.

METHODS

Patients with planned cataract removal by phacoemulsification and implantation of a trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP) were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter cohort study. Patients were allocated into three groups according to their axial length (AL): control group, AL < 26 mm; high myopia group, AL 26-28 mm; extreme myopia group, AL ≥ 28 mm. At 3 months post-surgery, data for 456 eyes of 456 patients were collected, including visual acuity, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (CS), visual quality, spectacle independence, and overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

After surgery, the uncorrected distance visual acuity improved from 0.59 ± 0.41 to 0.06 ± 0.12 logMAR (P < 0.001). In all three groups, about 60% of eyes achieved uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better, but significantly fewer eyes in the extreme myopia group achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better (P < 0.05). Defocus curves revealed that the visual acuity was significantly worse in the extreme myopia group than others at 0.00, - 0.50, and - 2.00 diopters (P < 0.05). CS did not differ between the control and high myopia groups but was significantly lower in the extreme myopia group at 3 cycles per degree. The extreme myopia group also had greater higher-order aberrations and coma, lower modulation transfer functions and VF-14 scores, more glare and halos, worse spectacle independence at far distance, and consequently lower patient satisfaction than others (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In eyes with a high degree of myopia (AL < 28 mm), trifocal IOLs have been shown to provide similar visual outcomes to those in non-myopic eyes. However, in extremely myopic eyes, acceptable results may be obtained with trifocal IOLs, but a reduced level of uncorrected distance vision is expected.

Clinical Outcomes of a New Non-Diffractive Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens Targeted for Mini-Monovision

Purpose

To assess visual acuity, binocular defocus curve, spectacle independence, and photic phenomena after bilateral same-day cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (IOL) with mini-monovision.

Methods

Single-center retrospective study including 124 eyes from 62 patients who underwent bilateral implantation of an isofocal EDOF lens [Isopure® (BVI)] with mini-monovision (-0.50 D). Refraction, visual acuity at different distances, binocular defocus curves, spectacle independence, and subjective ratings of picture-referenced photic phenomena were assessed one to two months postoperatively.

Results

The mean postoperative refractive spherical equivalent was -0.15±0.41D in the dominant eyes and -0.46±0.35D in the mini-monovision eyes (p<0.01). Overall, 98.4% and 87.7% of the eyes were within ±1.00D and ±0.50D of the target refraction, respectively. Postoperative monocular corrected distance visual acuity was -0.04±0.07 logMAR. Binocular uncorrected visual acuity was -0.02±0.07, 0.13±0.11and 0.40±0.20 logMAR for far, intermediate and near, respectively. At the visual acuity threshold of 0.20 logMAR (or better) the defocus curve ranged from -1.6D to +0.9D. Reported spectacle-independence was 96% for far distance, 95% for intermediate, and 34% for near. Five percent of patients reported halos, 16% starburst, and 16% glare. Only 7% of all patients considered them bothersome.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing same-day bilateral cataract surgery, an isofocal EDOF lens provided an extended range of functional vision, up to 63 cm, resulting in useful uncorrected near vision, good uncorrected intermediate vision, and excellent uncorrected distance vision. Subjective patient satisfaction in terms of spectacle independence and photic phenomena was high.

Analysis of Daily Visual Habits in a Presbyopic Population

Purpose

To evaluate and report the visual habits and requirements of a sample of presbyopic patients using an advanced sensor.

Methods

Transversal study collecting clinical data from 40 presbyopes candidates for presbyopia-correction intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with mean age of 61.0 years (43-80 years). A complete ophthalmological examination was performed in all patients including visual, refractive, an ocular biometric analysis. Furthermore, patients were instructed about the use of the Vivior Monitor system (Vivior AG, Zürich, Switzerland), which consists of a series of sensors attached to the rim of the patient's glasses that capture information about the visual behavior of the patient. This device was worn for a period of 36 hours or more. The data collected were transferred to a database and analyzed.

Results

Mean percentages of time dedicated to distance, intermediate, and near vision were 27.25 ± 11.93% (5-65%), 30.23 ± 9.36% (12-50%), and 42.53 ± 14.96% (13-78%), respectively. Mean percentages of time performing activities under photopic, mesopic, and scotopic conditions were 37.08 ± 23.20% (5-87%), 33.65 ± 13.84% (6-67%), and 29.28 ± 17.03% (4-65%). The percentage of time with digital screens ranged from 2% to 48%. Age was significantly correlated with the percentage of time dedicated to distance vision (r = 0.317, p=0.047) and to activities performed under photopic conditions (r = -0.344, p=0.030).

Conclusions

Distance and illumination conditions used to perform different daily life visual activities vary significantly among presbyopes, with a trend to the dedication of more time to intermediate and near visual activities performed under photopic and mesopic conditions. Data interpretation should be done with care until a proper validation of the device used.

Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Importance

A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.

Objective

To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.

Data Sources

Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.

Study Selection

Based on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Descriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.

Results

This NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.

Conclusions and Relevance

For patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.

Comparison of visual outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and a refractive bifocal intraocular lens in eyes with axial myopia: a prospective cohort study

Background

To assess and compare the efficacy, safety, accuracy, predictability and visual quality of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL in eyes with axial myopia.

Methods

This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with implantation of the diffractive trifocal IOL or the refractive bifocal IOL. Eyes were divided into four groups according to the IOL implanted and axial length. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at far, intermediate and near distances, prediction error of spherical equivalent (SE), contrast sensitivity and aberrations were evaluated three months after surgery.

Results

In total, 80 eyes of 80 patients were included: 20 eyes in each group. Three months postoperatively, the corrected distance visual acuity of two trifocal groups were significantly better than the axial myopia bifocal group (P = 0.007 and 0.043). There was no significant difference of postoperative SE (P = 0.478), but the SE predictability of the trifocal IOL was better, whether in axial myopia groups (P = 0.015) or in control groups (P = 0.027). The contrast sensitivity was similar among four groups. The total aberration, higher order aberration and trefoil aberration of bifocal groups were significantly higher (all P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The diffractive trifocal IOL and the refractive bifocal IOL both provided good efficacy, accuracy, predictability and safety for eyes with axial myopia. By contrast, the trifocal IOL had a better performance in corrected distance visual acuity and visual quality.

Trial registration

The study was retrospectively registered and posted on clinicaltrials.gov at 12/02/2020 (NCT04265846).

Presbyopia-correcting performance and subjective outcomes of a trifocal intraocular lens in eyes with different axial lengths: A prospective cohort study

Purpose

To compare the presbyopia-correcting performance, visual quality, satisfaction and life quality after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes with different axial lengths (AL).

Methods

This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with implantation of a trifocal IOL. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and distance-corrected visual acuity at different distances, contrast sensitivity, aberrations and IOL decentration were measured 3 months after surgery. Spectacle independence, adverse photic phenomena, overall satisfaction and life quality were assessed with a questionnaire.

Results

This study included 61 eyes of 61 patients: 16 eyes in the short AL group, 28 eyes in the control group and 17 eyes in the long AL group. Postoperatively, the prediction error (PE) of spherical equivalent showed a difference (P = 0.002). The uncorrected near visual acuity in the long AL group was higher (P = 0.047). Although a higher IOL decentration was obtained in the long AL group (P = 0.034), no significant difference was found in contrast sensitivity and aberrations (all P &gt; 0.05). In the questionnaire, patients in the long AL group showed a relatively lower spectacle independence at near distance (P = 0.060) and had difficulties in near activities, mental health and role in daily life (P = 0.003, 0.021, and 0.033). However, no significant difference was observed in overall satisfaction (P = 0.124).

Conclusion

With detailed preoperative evaluation, the trifocal IOL provided satisfactory visual outcomes for patients with different AL. AL had a certain influence on predictability and IOL decentration. And for patients with long AL, the inadaptability to the near focal point might become an important problem.

Visual performance following implantation of presbyopia correcting intraocular lenses

OBJECTIVE

To compare the visual outcomes following bilateral implantation of 3 presbyopia correcting IOLs.

METHODS

Results are reported for patients who underwent phacoemulsification with bilateral implantation of one of the following IOLs: Panoptix IOL, AT LISA tri IOL and Symphony IOL. Six months postoperative examination included monocular UIVA at 80 and 60 cm and monocular UNVA and DCNVA at 40 cm, monocular UDVA and CDVA, Spherical equivalent (SE) refraction, binocular defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, photopic phenomena, and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

UIVA at 80 cm was significantly better in the AT LISA group and the Symfony groups than the Panoptix group, while UIVA at 60 cm was better in the Symfony group and the Panoptix group than the AT LISA group. A worse DCNVA was recorded in the Symfony group. At a defocus of -2.50 D, the near VA was similar in the PanOptix and AT LISA groups (0.05, 0.07 logMAR respectively), which were significantly better than the Symfony group (0.3 LogMAR). Binocular photopic and scotopic contrast sensitivity outcomes were similar among the three groups at all spatial frequencies. In Symphony group, the frequency and the degree of bother of photic phenomena was relatively higher than the other two groups. Higher percentage of patients in symphony group reported their need for reading glasses.

CONCLUSION

PanOptix IOL and AT LISA IOL would be a good choice for patients aiming for an optimum near vision, while Symfony IOL seems suitable for patients having the priority for good intermediate vision.

Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes of Mix-and-Match Implantation of an Extended Depth-of-Focus and a Diffractive Bifocal Intraocular Lens

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of the extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (EDOF-IOL) and the diffractive bifocal IOL.

METHODS

Fifty-six eyes of 28 patients underwent cataract surgery with implantation of an EDOF-IOL (TECNIS Symfony, ZXR00) in their dominant eye and a diffractive bifocal IOL (+3.25 D add TECNIS ZLB00) in their nondominant eye. Monocular and binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction score (0-5), and spectacle dependence at near vision were evaluated at 3 months after the surgery.

RESULTS

Postoperative binocular uncorrected distant visual acuity was 0.009±0.031 logMAR, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was 0.090±0.158 logMAR, and uncorrected near visual acuity was 0.099±0.068 logMAR. The monocular defocus curve demonstrated better performance at intermediate distance in eyes with an EDOF-IOL and better performance at near distance in eyes with a diffractive bifocal IOL. An EDOF-IOL exhibited better outcomes in contrast sensitivity compared with a diffractive bifocal IOL. Three patients (10.7%) required glasses for near vision.

CONCLUSION

Mix-and-match implantation of a diffractive bifocal IOL with an EDOF-IOL provides an excellent range of vision, and high levels of contrast sensitivity and patient satisfaction.

Visual Outcomes after Implantation of Lucidis EDOF IOL

Purpose. To evaluate the visual performance and clinical outcomes after implantation of Lucidis EDOF IOL following cataract surgery. Design. In this retrospective study, medical records from all enrolled patients were analyzed, and the following information was extracted retrospectively over 3 months following surgery. Materials and Methods. We reviewed retrospectively 181 eyes of 98 patients, who underwent cataract surgery with Lucidis extended depth of focus IOL. Results. 44 patients were males (45%) and 54 were females (55%). The average age of the study population was 68 ± 11 years. The mean preoperative BCVA (logMAR) was 0.19 ± 0.18. The mean root mean square (RMS) high order aberration (HOA) was 0.18 ± 0.1. Monocular BCVA results were 0.02 ± 0.04 (logMAR) and 0.028 ± 0.04 (logMAR) 1 month and 3 months postoperatively, respectively. Between the baseline and 1-month measures, monocular distance BCVA improved by an average of 0.17 ± 0.14 logMAR ( $p$  = 0.0001). Between the baseline and 3-month postoperative measures, monocular distance BCVA improved by an average of 0.16 ± 0.13 logMAR ( $p$  = 0.0001). Monocular UDVA 1 and 3 months postoperatively was 0.08 ± 0.1 logMAR and 0.067 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively. 1-Month postoperative binocular UDVA was 0.036 ± 0.05 logMAR, binocular UIVA was 0.1 ± 0.08 logMAR, and binocular UNVA was 0.12 ± 0.14 logMAR. 3-Month postoperative binocular UDVA was 0.038 ± 0.05 logMAR, binocular UIVA was 0.09 ± 0.1 logMAR, and binocular UNVA was 0.16 ± 0.14 logMAR. Conclusions. Lucidis EDOF IOL achieves good visual performances in all distances.

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.

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.

Increased Near Vision Spectacle Dependence of Patients With Preoperative Myopia After Mix-and-Match Implantation of Trifocal EDOF and Trifocal IOLs

PURPOSE

To investigate the factors affecting near vision spectacle dependence after mix-and-match implantation of the trifocal extended depth of focus (EDOF) and trifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

A total of 204 eyes of 102 patients who underwent mix-and-match implantation of one trifocal EDOF and one trifocal IOL were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups according to spectacle dependence for near vision: reading glasses and no glasses. Clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the odds ratio of factors potentially associated with the need for reading glasses.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients (79.4%) did not need reading glasses and 21 (20.6%) did. The mean age of the no glasses group (55.6 ± 5.6 years) was significantly higher than that of the reading glasses group (52.7 ± 4.1 years). Preoperative refractions were more myopic in the reading glasses group than in the no glasses group. The postoperative uncorrected near visual acuities were better and the satisfaction scores were higher in the no glasses group compared to the reading glasses group. Multivariate binary regression analysis revealed that only pre-operative spherical equivalent (odds ratio: 1.397; P = .025) was related to the spectacle independence for near vision.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who had preoperative myopia and underwent mix-and-match implantation of trifocal EDOF and tri-focal IOLs tended to need spectacles for near vision. Surgeons should be aware of patients with myopia when considering mix-and-match implantation of trifocal EDOF and trifocal IOLs. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(11):746-753.].

Cataract: Advances in surgery and whether surgery remains the only treatment in future

Background

Cataract is the world's leading eye disease that causes blindness. The prevalence of cataract aged 40 years and older is approximately 11.8%-18.8%. Currently, surgery is the only way to treat cataracts.

Main Text

From early intracapsular cataract extraction to extracapsular cataract extraction, to current phacoemulsification cataract surgery, the incision ranges from 12 to 3 ​mm, and sometimes to even 1.8 ​mm or less, and the revolution in cataract surgery is ongoing. Cataract surgery has transformed from vision recovery to refractive surgery, leading to the era of refractive cataract surgery, and premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) such as toric IOLs, multifocal IOLs, and extended depth-of-focus IOLs are being increasingly used to meet the individual needs of patients. With its advantages of providing better visual acuity and causing fewer complications, phacoemulsification is currently the mainstream cataract surgery technique worldwide. However, patient expectations for the safety and accuracy of the operation are continually increasing. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) has entered the public's field of vision. FLACS is a combination of new laser technology and artificial intelligence to replace fine manual clear corneal incision, capsulorhexis, and nuclear pre-fragmentation, providing new alternative technologies for patients and ophthalmologists. As FLACS matures, it is being increasingly applied in complex cases; however, some think it is not cost-effective. Although more than 26 million cataract surgeries are performed each year, there is still a gap in the prevalence of cataracts, especially in developing countries. Although cataract surgery is a nearly ideal procedure and complications are manageable, both patients and doctors dream of using drugs to cure cataracts. Is surgery really the only way to treat cataracts in the future? It has been verified by animal experiments that lanosterol therapy in rabbits and dogs could make cataract severity alleviated and lens transparency partially recovered. Although there is still much to learn about cataract reversal, this groundbreaking work provided a new strategy for the prevention and treatment of cataracts.

Conclusions

Although cataract surgery is nearly ideal, it is still insufficient, we expect the prospects for cataract drugs to be bright.

Visual outcomes of a novel non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL targeted for mini-monovision: 3 month results of a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Evaluating visual outcomes, spectacle independence, and optical phenomena after bilateral implantation of a non-diffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL targeted for mini-monovision.

SETTING

University Eye Clinic Maastricht, the Netherlands.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients with age-related cataract were bilaterally implanted with a non-diffractive EDOF IOL (Alcon Acrysof IQ Vivity), targeted for mini-monovision. Outcome measures were the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), refractive outcomes, defocus-curves, spectacle independence, photic phenomena and Catquest-9SF questionnaires.

RESULTS

44 eyes of 22 patients were included. Binocular UDVA, UIVA and UNVA were -0.07 (± 0.10), 0.04 (± 0.09) and 0.23 (± 0.12) logMAR, respectively. The percentage of eyes within 1.0D and 0.5D of target was 100% and 95% for the dominant eye, 100% and 86% for the nondominant eye. The binocular defocus-curve was better than 0.10 logMAR over a range from -2.0D to +0.5D. The percentage of patients who reported no or rarely using glasses for distance, intermediate and near viewing distance was 96%, 68%, 38%, respectively. The percentage of patients who experienced no halos, glare or starbursts were 91%, 91%, 100%, respectively. Catquest-9SF showed a high patient satisfaction for daily life activities.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral Acrysof IQ Vivity IOL implantation targeted for mini-monovision, provides good visual acuity results for far and intermediate with functional near vision, high level of patient satisfaction and spectacle independence, and a monofocal disturbance profile.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Visual Quality and Visual Function of Two Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Made from the Same Material, but with Different Design and Optics

This semi-prospective, parallel, comparative investigation evaluated the clinical outcomes and quality of vision (contrast sensitivity, visual function, dysphotopsia, spectacle use, overall satisfaction) after mono- or bilateral implantation of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOL)-the Liberty® 677MY or the AT LISA® tri 839M-in 50 eyes of 25 cataract patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Eighty-nine percent of eyes implanted with the Liberty IOL and 59% of eyes implanted with the AT LISA IOL achieved a refractive outcome ±0.5 diopters of the target (emmetropia). Refractive outcomes were stable with both lenses. The proportions of eyes with 20/20 uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and 20/20 uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were higher in the Liberty group than in the AT LISA group (UDVA: 56% vs. 41%; UNVA: 83% vs. 66%). Optical quality assessment results were comparable for the two IOLs. Superior photopic contrast sensitivity was found with the Liberty lens. The rate of Nd:YAG capsulotomy at the 12-month follow-up was 16.7% in the Liberty group and 40.6% for the AT LISA IOL. Considering that both lenses are made from the same material, we propose that the noted differences in clinical outcomes may derive from differences in design and optical surface between the two 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.

Clinical outcome comparison: bilateral trifocal vs. mix-match extended depth of focus and trifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To analyze the visual outcomes, contrast sensitivity (CS), and patient satisfaction differences between the bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and the mix-match implantation of an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL and a diffractive trifocal IOL.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients who underwent bilateral implantation of AT LISA tri 839MP (Group 1) and 20 patients who had a mix-match implantation of AT LARA 829MP in the dominant eye and AT LISA tri 839MP in the nondominant eye (Group 2) were evaluated. Uncorrected distance (4 m), intermediate (60 cm and 80 cm), and near (40 cm) visual acuity, as well as CS, defocus curve, and responses to the patient questionnaires, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty eyes of 40 patients were included. Uncorrected distance and near visual outcomes were similar between the groups (p > 0.05). Group 2 showed significantly better intermediate visual outcomes at 60 cm and 80 cm than Group 1 (p < 0.05). Group 2 showed significantly better CS outcomes (photopic and mesopic) than Group 1 (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding defocus curves from + 0.00 D to - 2.00 D, but a significant difference was shown from - 2.00 D to - 4.00 D. Patients' satisfaction was significantly higher in Group 2 for driving at night (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both groups showed an effective visual performance. Group 2 exhibited better photopic and mesopic CS. The combination of EDOF and trifocal IOL seems to be a good option with a comfortable vision at all distances and less adverse visual phenomena.

Comparison of trifocal or hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes following implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or a hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL in cataract or refractive lens exchange surgeries. We examined 13 comparative studies with bilateral implantation of trifocal (898 eyes) or hybrid multifocal-EDOF (624 eyes) IOLs published through 1 March 2020. Better uncorrected and corrected near visual acuity (VA) were observed in the trifocal group (MD: − 0.143, 95% CI: − 0.192 to − 0.010, P < 0.001 and MD: − 0.149, 95% CI: − 0.217 to − 0.082, P < 0.001, respectively), while the hybrid multifocal-EDOF group presented better uncorrected intermediate VA (MD: 0.055, 95% CI: 0.016 to 0.093, P = 0.005). Trifocal IOLs were more likely to achieve spectacle independence at near distance (RR: 1.103, 95% CI: 1.036 to 1.152, P = 0.002). The halo photic effect was generated more frequently by the trifocal IOLs (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 1.025 to 1.696, P = 0.031). Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded comparable results between groups. Trifocal IOLs demonstrated better performance at near distance but apparently led to more photic disturbances. Our findings provided the most up-to-date and comprehensive evidence by comparing the benefits of advanced IOLs in clinical practice.

A Comparative Evaluation of Diffractive Trifocal and New Refractive/Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses for Refractive Lens Exchange

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the visual performance and quality of life (QOL) associated with refractive/extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) and diffractive trifocal IOLs in refractive lens exchange patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a comparative interventional study of patients undergoing implantation of Lucidis (Swiss Advanced Vision, SAV‑IOL SA, Neuchâtel, Switzerland) or AT LISA tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) IOLs. Near, intermediate, and distance best corrected and uncorrected visual acuities were collected at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. The vision-related QOL was evaluated 1 and 3 months after surgery, using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-14 (VF-14 QOL questionnaire).

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients underwent refractive lens exchange and IOL implantation, with 38 patients in the EDOF group and 36 in the trifocal group. Among all visual acuities, uncorrected near visual acuity was statistically significantly better with the Lucidis IOL at the first month (p = .02) and diminished at the third-month visit (p = .16). When we compared the VF-14 QOL questionnaire scores, reading small print, reading a newspaper or book, and driving at night were statistically significantly better in the Lucidis group at the first month (p = .00, for each). That difference persisted only in driving at night at the third-month visit (p = .04). Reading small print, driving at night, and doing fine handwork were the most difficult tasks in the AT LISA group at the first month, and only driving at night remained so at the third-month visit.

CONCLUSIONS

The refractive results and visual outcomes at all distances of EDOF and trifocal IOLs were highly satisfactory. However, the EDOF design in the Lucidis IOL achieves lower rates of glare in the early period after refractive lens exchange.

Comparing Visual Acuity, Low Contrast Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity After Trifocal Toric and Extended Depth of Focus Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare visual acuity at various distances (far, intermediate and near), low contrast acuity and contrast sensitivity after trifocal toric and extended depth of focus (EDOF) toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

Patients and Methods

This was a non-interventional two-arm comparative study of visual outcomes after uncomplicated bilateral cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery with IOL implantation between 6 months and 5 years before a single diagnostic examination visit. There was no masking and no control group. Subjects had to have uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/40 (0.3 logMAR) or better measured at the time of their study visit. Clinical evaluations included the manifest refraction, visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate (60 cm) and near (40 cm), low contrast (10%) VA and contrast sensitivity.

Results

A total of 50 bilaterally implanted patients (25 trifocal, 25 EDOF) were examined; the two groups had similar characteristics, including corneal astigmatism. Postoperative refractive outcomes were also similar. There were no statistically significant differences in distance or intermediate VA between groups, but the trifocal group had significantly better near VA both uncorrected (p = 0.009) and distance-corrected (p = 0.014). There were no statistically significant differences in the low contrast acuity measures between IOLs at either distance or 40 cm, with or without glare. Contrast sensitivity in mesopic and photopic conditions was similar.

Conclusion

The trifocal and EDOF toric IOLs performed similarly for all measures except near VA, where the trifocal toric provided significantly better acuity. For subjects interested in reducing spectacle independence at near, this may be an important consideration.