Comparison of postoperative visual performance between bifocal and trifocal intraocular Lens based on randomized controlled trails: a meta-analysis

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.

Functional Classification of Intraocular Lenses Based on Defocus Curves: A Scoping Review and Cluster Analysis

PURPOSE

To explore a potential functional classification of intraocular lenses (IOLs) based on monocular visual acuity defocus curves (VADCs) as a primary end-point.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed. Two independent reviewers screened the literature for inclusion and data extraction. Inclusion criteria were full-text primary clinical studies of IOLs, published in English from 2010 onward, involving patients undergoing cataract or refractive lens exchange. A cluster analysis was conducted to explore similarities in the range of field (RoF) and increase of visual acuity from intermediate to near (ΔVA).

RESULTS

A total of 107 studies were ultimately included from the 436 identified in the systematic search, with an additional 5 studies added through the snowballing technique search. The cluster analysis was conducted using 69 reports that included monocular VADCs. Two main categories were identified based on the achieved RoF for 0.2 and 0.3 logMAR: full (FRoF) and partial (PRoF) RoF IOLs. Three subcategories were identified for FRoF depending on ΔVA: continuous (FRoF-C), smooth (FRoF-Sm), and steep (FRoF-St). On the other hand, PRoF IOLs shared the characteristic of monotonous decrease in visual acuity and were subclassified into two subcategories depending on the achieved RoF: narrowed (PRoF-N) and extended (PRoF-Ex). An additional subcategory was added to PRoF, enhanced (PRoF-En), for 7 reports alternating between PRoF-N and PRoF-Ex depending on the use of 0.2 or 0.3 logMAR as a cut-off for calculating the RoF.

CONCLUSIONS

IOLs can be functionally classified into six types depending on the RoF and shape of the monocular VADC. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(2):e108-e116.].

Clinical Outcomes of a Bi-Aspheric Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To assess refractive and visual outcomes post-cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of a bi-aspheric diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

Methods

A total of 24 patients who underwent bilateral implantation with the Asqelio Trifocal IOL TFLIO130C were evaluated at the 6 months postoperative mark. Key outcome measures included refractive error, photopic monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), uncorrected and corrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, CDIVA) at 60 cm, and uncorrected and corrected near visual acuity (UNVA, CDNVA) at 40 cm. Additionally, monocular and binocular CDNVA were assessed under mesopic conditions. Monocular and binocular defocus curves, and binocular contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, with and without glare, were measured. Catquest-9SF and visual symptoms questionnaires were also administered.

Results

Postoperative average values of binocular logMAR photopic CDVA, photopic CDIVA, photopic CDNVA and mesopic CDNVA were -0.01±0.06, 0.03±0.09, 0.02±0.05 and 0.19±0.13, respectively. About 100% of patients showed cumulative CDVA and CDNVA ≥20/25, and CDIVA ≥20/32. The average absolute depth-of-focus was about 4.50D. The average postoperative spherical equivalent was 0.05±0.30D and 100% and 93.75% eyes were within ±1.00D and ±0.50D, respectively. Contrast sensitivity was either within or above normal levels under both photopic and mesopic conditions, both with and without glare, except for 12 cpd under mesopic conditions with glare where the mean falls just below the normal range. Questionnaires revealed that 87.5% of patients were either satisfied or very satisfied with their vision after the surgery, and higher percentages for no difficulty in performing different activities, ranging from 70.83% to 95.83%, were reported.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the bi-aspheric diffractive trifocal IOL yields very good visual performance across distances, fostering high satisfaction levels and minimal difficulties in daily activities.

Outcomes and predictive factors in multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Options for addressing presbyopia with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have become more varied and sophisticated. We reviewed recent literature on multifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs in order to provide insight on their respective advantages, with emphasis on the visual outcomes of each design.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increased patient age, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) abnormalities, abnormal optical axis measurements, and better preoperative visual acuity have been implicated as predictors of worse postoperative vision or visual quality in multifocal IOLs. Despite differences in objective outcomes, patient-reported outcomes such as satisfaction are consistently similar between multifocal and EDOF IOLs. EDOFs may have slightly lower rates of spectacle independence than trifocals, but there is more support for their use in the setting of with other ocular conditions.

SUMMARY

Multifocal and EDOF IOLs are both viable options for patients who wish to preserve near vision. Given their similar objective performance in many aspects, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on their expectations and visual requirements is critical to postoperative satisfaction. Evidence for advanced technology IOL implantation in pediatric patients remains inconclusive.

Clinical Performance of a New Trifocal IOL with a 7.0 mm Optical Zone

Purpose

To evaluate the refractive and visual outcomes following cataract surgery and implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with a 7.0 mm optical zone.

Methods

A total of 23 patients who underwent bilateral implantation with the Triva-aXAY IOL were analyzed at 6 months post-surgery. The main outcome measures were refractive error, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected-distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), uncorrected and corrected-distance intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, CDIVA) at 60 cm, uncorrected and corrected-distance near visual acuity (UNVA, CDNVA) at 40 cm, and binocular defocus curve. Patients also completed the Catquest-9SF questionnaire.

Results

All eyes were within ±1.00D, and 91.30% of eyes within ±0.50D, with a mean postoperative spherical equivalent of -0.14±0.29D. Similarly, 95.65% of patients showed a binocular UDVA ≥20/25, compared to 100% for CDVA, and the mean binocular UDVA and CDVA were 0.02±0.06 and 0.00±0.05 logMAR, respectively. At intermediate vision, 65.22% of patients showed a binocular UIVA ≥20/25, compared to 86.96% for CDIVA, and the mean binocular UIVA and CDIVA were 0.07±0.06 and 0.06±0.06 logMAR, respectively. At near, 95.65% of patients showed a binocular UNVA and CDNVA ≥20/25, with a mean binocular UDNVA and CDNVA of 0.04±0.07 and 0.02±0.05 logMAR, respectively. Finally, 95.65% of patients reported being quite satisfied to very satisfied with their vision and about 74% did not report any difficulty with their vision in their everyday life. Between 65.22% and 100% of patients reported no difficulty performing different tasks.

Conclusion

Our study shows good visual and refractive outcomes with high satisfaction in patients implanted with the Triva-aXAY IOL with a 7.0 mm optical zone.

Clinical outcomes of trifocal toric intraocular lenses

The purpose of this report is to summarize the visual and refractive outcomes of patients with trifocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) implants. A peer-reviewed literature search in different databases was carried out to identify clinical publications reporting outcomes of patients with this type of implant. The analysis considered information on the sample of eyes, type and power of the trifocal toric IOLs, biometric preoperative data, postoperative refraction, rotational stability, visual acuity at different distances and other analyses undertaken, such as contrast sensitivity or quality of vision questionnaires. 20 clinical studies, encompassing a total of 1404 eyes implanted with three commercially available trifocal toric IOLs, were included in this review. The analysis assessed the outcomes reported for the AT LISA tri toric 939MP IOL, involving 3 articles and 313 eyes; the FineVision toric POD FT IOL, with 7 articles studying 370 eyes, and the AcrySof IQ PanOptix toric IOL, involving 11 articles and 721 eyes. Our assessment of the outcomes of the various studies indicates that the efficacy of the refractive correction (both sphere and cylinder) and visual acuity at different distances was similar between the IOL models. The same was found for the patients' quality of vision and satisfaction levels, in addition to photic phenomena reported. The outcomes summarized in this report lead us to conclude that the use of trifocal toric IOLs allows complete visual restoration over a wide range of distances.

Toric Trifocal Intraocular Lens for Refractive Lens Exchange: A Multi-center, Multi-surgeon Large Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To assess the outcomes of a novel toric trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) for refractive lens exchange (RLE) in a large series of eyes with corneal astigmatism.

METHODS

Consecutive eyes that underwent RLE with the PanOptix Toric IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) were included. Outcomes measures included postoperative distance (UDVA), 60 cm intermediate (UIVA), and 40 cm near (UNVA) uncorrected visual acuity, manifest refraction, spherical and defocus equivalent, efficacy and safety indices, and vector analyses of refractive and toric IOL accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 4,933 eyes had a median follow-up of 3 months. UDVA of 20/20 and 20/40 was obtained in 65% and 99% of eyes monocularly and 87% and 100% binocularly, respectively. UIVA at 60 cm of 20/25 and 20/40 was achieved in 70% and 99% of eyes monocularly and in 77% and 100% binocularly, respectively. UNVA at 40 cm of 20/25 and 20/40 was achieved in 85% and 96% of eyes monocularly and in 95% and 100% binocularly, respectively. A total of 67%, 89%, 97%, and 99% of eyes had a SEQ within 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 diopter (D) of intended target (R² = 0.99). Postoperative refractive astigmatism of 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 D or less was achieved in 86%, 95%, and 98% of eyes. The vector analysis correction index and index of success were 1.04 ± 0.35 and 0.41 ± 0.31 for toric IOL accuracy and 1.00 ± 0.46 and 0.36 ± 0.55 for refractive accuracy, respectively. The 3- and 12-month post-RLE excimer laser enhancement rates were 1.1% (95% CI: 0.8% to 1.4%) and 7.6% (95% CI: 6.9% to 8.3%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The PanOptix Toric IOL performed well for a wide range of axial lengths and corneal astigmatism in eyes that had RLE. Most patients achieved effective uncorrected binocular near, intermediate, and distance vision for daily functioning. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):302-310.].

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.

Visual Performance, Spectacle Independence, Visual disturbances and Patient Satisfaction after Cataract Surgery: Comparison of 2 Diffractive Intraocular Lenses in a Tertiary Hospital

Purpose:

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the AcrySof PanOptix intra-ocular lens and AT LISA tri 839MP trifocal IOL, 6 months after cataract surgery.

Patients and Methods:

This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery with diffractive IOL implantation. Patients were divided into two groups based on the IOL model implanted (AcrySof PanOptix IOL; AT LISA tri 839MP trifocal IOL). Study parameters were noted preoperatively (visual acuity only) and 6 months postoperatively. At the 6-month post-operative visit, both eyes were examined for the following: uncorrected distance visual acuity at far (6 m), uncorrected intermediate visual acuities (UIVA) at 80 cm and 60 cm, near uncorrected visual acuity at 40 cm, incidence of posterior capsule opacification, presence of subjective photic phenomena, in addition to a questionnaire assessing the quality of life and visual function.

Results:

Thirty nine patients (78 eyes) with diffractive IOLs (AT LISA, n=23; PanOptix n=16) were included. No statistical significance was found between the lenses. The median power of both implanted lenses was 21. Post-operatively, the AT LISA group showed slightly lower median UIVA than the PanOptix group at 60 cm and the reverse at 80 cm. A larger number of patients in the PanOptix group showed better performance at intermediate activities than in the AT LISA group. Posterior capsule opacification developed in significantly fewer eyes with PanOptix (6.2%) than with AT LISA (17.4%), none had double vision, and the photic phenomena were found troublesome by >20% of the patients in either group. Overall satisfaction was comparably high.

Conclusion:

Both IOLs had similar and favorable visual outcomes. However, PanOptix IOL had better performance at 60 cm in intermediate visual activities.

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.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outcomes of a Refractive Segmented Bifocal Intraocular Lens with a Lower Near Addition

Purpose

To evaluate clinical and subjective outcomes of a segmented bifocal IOL with a 2.0 D near addition.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective analyses of patients who had undergone refractive lens exchange with bilateral implantation of the SBL-2 IOL (Lenstec, Inc., Christ Church, Barbados) were performed. The number of patients included in the study was 389 (778 eyes). Refractive, visual and patient-reported outcomes were presented for the last available visit (mean follow-up 2.05 ± 1.33 months).

Results

The percentage of eyes within ±0.50D and ±1.00D of emmetropia was 82.5% (642/778) and 97.8% (761/778), respectively. The mean uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (66 cm) of the last available visit was 0.08 ± 0.15 logMAR monocularly and 0.04 ± 0.14 logMAR binocularly. The mean monocular and binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (40 cm) were 0.30 ± 0.15 logMAR and 0.24 ± 0.14 logMAR, respectively. Of all patients, 97.2% (378/389) claimed never to use any correction for distance vision, while 93.1% (362/389) of patients did not require any correction for near vision. The mean scores for visual phenomena (on the scale from 1 – no difficulty to 7 – severe difficulty) were 1.8 ± 1.3, 1.7 ± 1.2, 1.7 ± 1.2 and 1.6 ± 1.2 for glare, halo, starburst, and ghosting/double vision, respectively.

Conclusion

Despite the lower near addition of SBL-2 segmented bifocal IOL, patients achieved reasonable rates of spectacle independence and a low incidence of visual phenomena.

Visual and satisfaction results with implantation of the trifocal Panoptix® intraocular lens in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To assess visual results (including the Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient), and satisfaction, following the implantation of PanOptix® a trifocal intraocular lens.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective cohort study. 130 eyes of 65 subjects with bilateral implantation were included. Binocular uncorrected visual acuities [distance (Binocular UDVA), intermediate (Binocular UIVA) and near (Binocular UNVA)] were measured. Also, the manifest refraction, binocular defocus curve and binocular contrast sensitivity were determined. The Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient, a new single numerical parameter based on the area under the curve of the defocus curve, was calculated. The validated Spanish CATQUEST-9SF satisfaction survey was applied.

RESULTS

Postoperative visual acuity ranges were: binocular UDVA 0.18 to 0.0 LogMAR, binocular UIVA 0.30 to 0.0 LogMAR and Binocular UNVA 0.18 to 0.0 LogMAR. The levels of contrast sensitivity both in bright light conditions (with and without glare) and low light conditions with glare, remained within the limits of normality. Under scotopic conditions without glare values below normality were found at lower spatial frequencies. The binocular defocus curve showed a plateau without a clearly evident peak. The Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient was 0.199. Two patients (3.1%) needed glasses after the procedure for near and intermediate vision. No patient manifested great visual difficulties or was dissatisfied with the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The trifocal platform showed very good results in this series of patients. 96.9% of the patients achieved independence of the glasses and expressed a high degree of satisfaction. The Lapid-Kushlin defocus coefficient was better than those calculated from literature, for other multifocal intraocular lenses.

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.

First Results after Implantation of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Trifocal Intraocular Lenses: Visual and Optical Performance

Purpose

To compare postcataract surgery visual and optical performance between two trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with the same optical design: a hydrophobic acrylic glistening-free IOL and a hydrophilic acrylic IOL.

Methods

Patients were bilaterally implanted with either the hydrophobic or the hydrophilic IOL. The data of the patients' right eyes were evaluated. Visual quality assessments included refractive outcomes, monocular visual acuity (VA) at far, intermediate, and near distances, defocus curve, aberrations (spherical aberration (SA)), root mean square (RMS) of corneal, internal, and total higher-order aberrations (HOAs)), and tilt of IOL.

Results

Fifty-one patients were included in the analysis: 26 patients implanted with the hydrophobic IOL and 25 patients implanted with the hydrophilic IOL. At 1 month, no statistically significant differences were found for monocular uncorrected and corrected VA at distance, distance-corrected VA at intermediate and near, defocus curve, manifest spherical equivalent, total SA, and RMS of the total, internal, and corneal HOA. The defocus curve of both groups showed a visual acuity of 0.3 logMAR or better in the intermediate range from 0.5 to −2.5 D of vergence level with no significant differences between the groups. Compared to the hydrophilic group, y-direction tilt was significantly higher in the hydrophobic group (p=0.027). The total tilt and x-axis tilt did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion

Both IOLs demonstrated an excellent quality of vision and provided the patient with a wide range of vision.

Comparative Efficacy Between Trifocal and Bifocal Intraocular Lens Among Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The comparative efficacy of trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) remained uncertain among patients undergoing cataract surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to answer this question. PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched to capture relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Visual acuity (VA) and patient's satisfaction were regarded as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included residual sphere, spherical equivalence, residual cylinder, posterior capsular opacification (PCO), spectacle independence, and other complications. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan 5.2.0. A total of 9 studies (11 RCTs) with 297 participants (558 eyes) were included. Meta-analysis showed significant differences between trifocal and bifocal IOLs in the uncorrected near VA (mean difference [MD], −0.008; 95% confidence interval [Cl], −0.015 to −0.001; P = 0.028) and uncorrected intermediate VA (MD, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; P < 0.01). Trifocal IOLs were associated with decreased PCO incidence when compared to bifocal IOLs (relative risk [RR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.95; P = 0.03). Trifocal IOLs may be superior to bifocal IOLs because of its improved intermediate VA and reduced incidence of PCO.

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.

Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction with a New Diffractive-Refractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens - A 12 Month Prospective Study

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantation of Optiflex Trio, a new trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) following cataract surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing phacoemulsification for age-related cataracts and who satisfy the eligibility criteria underwent bilateral implantation with Optiflex Trio trifocal IOL. At follow -up visits of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, binocular uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, reading performance, contrast sensitivity (CS) and patient satisfaction for dysphotopsia and spectacle independence were evaluated using questionnaires.

Results

A total of 54 eyes from 27 patients with mean age of 66.30±7.48 years were included in the study. At 12 months, 78% (n = 21) patients had binocular cumulative UDVA of 20/20 or better. Post-op SE refraction accuracy was within ±0.50 D for 93% (n = 50) eyes, and refractive cylinder accuracy was within ≤0.50 D in 94% (n = 51) eyes. The mean binocular UNVA was 0.01±0.05 LogMAR, and the mean UIVA at 60 and 80 cm was 0.07±0.06 and 0.03±0.05 LogMAR, respectively, at 12 months. Reading speeds at 40, 60 and 80 cm showed improvement overtime. No patient had complained of severe dysphotopsia, and none of the patients required glasses for any activity. No eye underwent YAG-laser capsulotomy for significant PCO at the end of mean follow-up.

Conclusion

After 12 months, Optiflex Trio trifocal IOL provided a complete visual restoration with good visual quality outcomes in terms of uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. The incidence of dysphotopsia was low, and spectacle independence was high, resulting in good patient satisfaction.

Trial Registry

CTRI/2019/10/021647 (www.ctri.nic.in).

A Global Assessment of Eye Health and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Question

What is the association between vision impairment, eye diseases, or ophthalmic interventions and quality of life?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study, vision impairment and eye diseases were associated with lower quality of life. More than half of the ophthalmic interventions included had a positive association with quality of life.

Meaning

The associations of quality of life with vision impairment and the improvements in quality of life with ophthalmic interventions support efforts to improve access to ophthalmic treatments globally to reach the millions of people affected by eye disease each year.

Importance

More than 1 billion people worldwide have vision impairment or blindness from potentially preventable or correctable causes. Quality of life, an important measure of physical, emotional, and social well-being, appears to be negatively associated with vision impairment, and increasingly, ophthalmic interventions are being assessed for their association with quality of life.

Objective

To examine the association between vision impairment or eye disease and quality of life, and the outcome of ophthalmic interventions on quality of life globally and across the life span, through an umbrella review or systematic review of systematic reviews.

Evidence Review

The electronic databases MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Proquest Dissertations, and Theses Global were searched from inception through June 29, 2020, using a comprehensive search strategy. Systematic reviews addressing vision impairment, eye disease, or ophthalmic interventions and quantitatively or qualitatively assessing health-related, vision-related, or disease-specific quality of life were included. Article screening, quality appraisal, and data extraction were performed by 4 reviewers working independently and in duplicate. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal and data extraction forms for umbrella reviews were used.

Findings

Nine systematic reviews evaluated the association between quality of life and vision impairment, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or mendelian eye conditions (including retinitis pigmentosa). Of these, 5 were reviews of quantitative observational studies, 3 were reviews of qualitative studies, and 1 was a review of qualitative and quantitative studies. All found an association between vision impairment and lower quality of life. Sixty systematic reviews addressed at least 1 ophthalmic intervention in association with quality of life. Overall, 33 unique interventions were investigated, of which 25 were found to improve quality of life compared with baseline measurements or a group receiving no intervention. These interventions included timely cataract surgery, anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for age-related macular degeneration, and macular edema.

Conclusions and Relevance

There is a consistent association between vision impairment, eye diseases, and reduced quality of life. These findings support pursuing ophthalmic interventions, such as timely cataract surgery and anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, for common retinal diseases, where indicated, to improve quality of life for millions of people globally each year.

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.

Differences in intermediate vision: monofocal intraocular lenses vs. monofocal extended depth of focus intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyse whether an extended depth of focus (EDOF) monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (TECNIS Eyhance™, Johnson&Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc., Santa Ana, CA) provides better intermediate visual acuity (VA) than another monofocal IOL (TECNIS 1-piece™, Johnson&Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc., Santa Ana, CA) from the same platform.

METHODS

Randomised prospective observational study. Patients who required cataract surgery in both eyes were included. Patients in one group were implanted with Tecnis 1-piece IOL and those in the other group with Eyhance EDOF monofocal IOL. One month after surgery in the second eye, we assessed the corrected intermediate VA (66 cm) and obtained defocus curves. We also explored the correlation of: high-order and spherical aberrations with intermediate VA, pupil size with intermediate VA and age with intermediate VA.

RESULTS

We analysed 30 patients (60 eyes), 15 patients in the TECNIS 1-piece group and 15 in the Eyhance group. Both groups achieved a far VA of 0.00 logMAR. In contrast, for intermediate vision, VA was better with the Eyhance EDOF monofocal IOLs (0.16 ± 0.12 LogMAR), the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). In addition, binocular intermediate VA was found to be significantly correlated with corneal (6 mm) RMS high-order aberrations (ρ 0.476) and Z₄⁰ (ρ 0.483) with the Eyhance IOL.

CONCLUSIONS

The new EDOF monofocal IOL (Eyhance) offers sufficient depth of focus to provide patients with comfortable vision without impairing far vision.

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 participants with presbyopia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 9); 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 26 September 2019. We searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles and the abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) for the years 2005 to 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies conducted in Europe with a total of 175 participants. All five studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (primary outcome of the review), while some 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 58 to 64 years. Only one study reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all 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). In two studies, the investigators observed that participants' satisfaction or spectacle independence may be higher in the trifocal group at six months, although another study found no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction or spectacle independence between groups. Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Two studies reported information on adverse events at one year. One study reported that participants showed no intraoperative or postoperative complications, while the other study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy. The certainty of the evidence was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty of evidence that compared to bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there is 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 and quality of life.