Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses: A meta-analysis

Comparison of Early Vision Quality of SBL-2 and SBL-3 Segmented Refractive Lens

PURPOSE

To compare objective quality of vision in patients undergoing phacoemulsification with implantation of a bilateral segmented multifocal intraocular lens (SMIOL).

METHODS

A retro-prospective study included 110 eyes of 55 patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral SMIOL implantation. Patients were divided according to the type of implanted intraocular lens into group 1 (SBL-2, 62 eyes) and group 2 (SBL-3, 48 eyes). Postoperatively, monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA, at 66 cm), uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA, at 40 cm), corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA) and defocus curve were measured and evaluated. The follow-up period was 6 months.

RESULTS

Mean UCDVA in group 1 (SBL-2) was 0.010 ±0.15 LogMAR monocularly, 0.01 ±0.10 LogMAR binocularly, and in group 2 (SBL-3) was 0.02 ±0.11 LogMAR monocularly and -0.07 ±0.09 LogMAR binocularly. Binocular defocus curves showed that the SBL-3 group performed better than the SBL-2 lens at a vergence of -1.50 D corresponding to 66 cm (center distance), averaging 0.03 ±0.11 LogMAR, while the SBL-2 group averaged 0.12 ±0.14 LogMAR (p = 0.01). The -2.50 D vergence characterizing near vision (40 cm) was achieved by the SBL-2 lens in our study at 0.33 ±0.15 LogMAR and by the SBL-3 lens at 0.00 ±0.11 LogMAR (p = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Both SMIOLs provided very good vision at all tested distances 6 months postoperatively. The SBL-2 lens performed better in UCIVA, while the SBL-3 lens excelled in UCDVA and UCNVA.

Refractive cataract surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study to provide an overview of recent publications and opinions in refractive cataract surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the advent of intraocular lenses (IOLs) on different platforms, the surgeon has a wide arena of types of IOL to choose, depending on the patient's visual requirement. Optimization of the tear film, integrating tomography and topography devices for appropriate keratometry values, biometry, use of advanced formulas for IOL power calculation and application of newer IOLs can help achieve target refraction in cases scheduled for cataract surgery. Intraoperative aberrometry can be a useful aid for cataract surgery in postrefractive cases and can help minimize residual postoperative astigmatism.

SUMMARY

Evolvement and rapid advancement of technology allows to impart desired refractive outcomes in most of the cases postcataract surgery. Appropriate preoperative and intraoperative factors should be considered to achieve the desired postoperative outcome.

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 Performance of a Hydrophobic Acrylic Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Japanese Population

INTRODUCTION

In this study, clinical performance of a hydrophobic acrylic diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with double C-loop haptics was evaluated in Japanese cataract eyes.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients had bilateral cataract surgery with the implantation of a trifocal IOL with double C-loop haptics. Postoperative examinations at 6 months included assessing uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at 5 m, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. Binocular defocus, contrast sensitivity, spectacle independence, symptoms of photic phenomena and quality of vision (QOV) were also observed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients received 46 IOLs binocularly. Manifest refraction spherical equivalent was - 0.227 ± 0.385 D (mean ± standard deviation) at 6 months postoperatively. Binocular UDVA, binocular UIVA and binocular UNVA were - 0.101 ± 0.065, - 0.021 ± 0.079 and 0.022 ± 0.095 logMAR units, respectively. Binocular CDVA, binocular DCIVA and binocular DCNVA were - 0.151 ± 0.044, - 0.042 ± 0.067 and - 0.011 ± 0.080 logMAR, respectively. Binocular CDVA of 0.00 logMAR or better was obtained in the defocus from - 3.0 D until + 0.5 D. Only 8.7% of patients required the use of spectacles postoperatively. There were no symptoms of glare, halo and light disturbance in 78.3%, 56.5% and 69.6% of patients, respectively. QOV scores significantly improved postoperatively (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The hydrophobic acrylic trifocal IOL with double C-loop haptics provides good visual performance at all distances and produces high spectacle independence rate and patient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04699266 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

Comparison of 3-month visual outcomes of a new multifocal intraocular lens vs a trifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical performance of the TECNIS Synergy multifocal (model ZFR00V) intraocular lens (IOL) with that of the AcrySof PanOptix Trifocal (model TFNT00) IOL in patients undergoing bilateral cataract surgery.

SETTING

Multicenter clinical setting.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized comparative study.

METHODS

Patients aged 22 years or older were randomly assigned (2:1) to bilateral implantation with ZFR00V or TFNT00 IOLs. End points included the mean binocular distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm, photopic and mesopic DCNVAs at 33 cm, photopic low-contrast corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and mesopic CDVA, nondirected patient responses to an ocular/visual symptoms questionnaire, and safety.

RESULTS

Of the 150 patients implanted with IOLs, 95 of the 97 patients with ZFR00V IOLs and 52 of the 53 patients with TFNT00 IOLs completed the 3-month follow-up. Most patients in the ZFR00V and TFNT00 groups achieved 20/25 or better binocular CDVA (100% vs 96.2%) and DCNVA measured at 40 cm (88.4% vs 75.0%) and 33 cm (78.9% vs 51.9%). The mean between-group difference in binocular DCNVA at 40 cm favored ZFR00V IOLs (0.5 lines Snellen; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.089; P ≤ .05). Similarly, the mean binocular photopic and mesopic DCNVAs at 33 cm (0.8 lines Snellen each; both P ≤ .05 vs TFNT00) and photopic high-contrast and low-contrast CDVA (0.5 lines Snellen each; both P ≤ .05 vs TFNT00) favored ZFR00V IOLs. Patient-reported ocular/visual symptoms and safety were generally similar between the 2 IOLs.

CONCLUSIONS

The ZFR00V IOL showed an extensive range of vision, particularly through near distances, and better mesopic performance than the TFNT00 IOL in patients undergoing cataract surgery.

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.

Observation of Visual Quality after Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Combined with Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Objective

This study is the first observation of Alcon's PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implanted in 55 cataract patients with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery.

Methods

Fifty-five patients (63 eyes) with cataract were treated with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery combined with trifocal IOL implantation. Visual acuity, defocus curve, higher order aberration (HOA), refractive stability, eyeglass removal rate, and satisfaction were evaluated and analyzed.

Results

We found that the visual acuity of patients with near, intermediate, and distance vision was better than 0.1 LogMAR at 1, 3, and 6 months after the completion of surgery. The uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA), and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) of patients at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery were compared with those before operation, showing statistical significance. Six months after the operation, all patients' surgical eyes had a smooth transition in the defocus range from +0D to -2.5D, and the visual acuity of the surgical eyes reached a level better than 0.1 LogMAR. The statistical results of 6-month follow-up showed that the eyeglass removal rate at near, intermediate, and far distances was 100%. At 6 months postoperatively, only 1 case had nocturnal glare, which affected life; 3 cases developed glare and halo but did not affect life. The patient satisfaction rate was 98.18%.

Conclusions

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with trifocal IOL implantation can remove the lens from the patient with satisfactory visual quality and significantly improve the postoperative satisfaction of the patient.

Comparison of Bilateral Reading Performance Among Two Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the performance of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) and a lens combining a bifocal diffractive profile and extended depth of focus (EDOF) profile.

METHODS

This non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 42 patients (84 eyes) undergoing lens surgery with implantation of either the FineVision HP trifocal IOL (PhysIOL) or TECNIS Synergy bifocal EDOF IOL (Johnson and Johnson Surgical Vision). There were 21 patients (42 eyes) in each group. The primary outcome was reading speed at high contrast and luminance. Secondary outcomes were reading speed at lower contrasts and luminances, visual acuity at all distances (distance, intermediate, and near) with and without correction, and quality of vision.

RESULTS

The reading speed at high contrast (100%) and high luminance (100%) was better in the Synergy group (P = .01). This difference between the two IOLs seemed to be preserved at lower contrasts and luminances. There was no statistically significant difference between visual acuities except for monocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (P = .046) in favor of the FineVision HP IOL. The mean spherical equivalents in the FineVision HP and Synergy groups were 0.14 ± 0.64 and 0.10 ± 0.33 diopters without significant difference between these means (P = .78). The defocus curve was more dome-shaped for the Synergy IOL. The evaluation of visual symptoms was comparable in both groups. The glare halo (Halometry test; Aston University) was smaller in the FineVision HP group (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

The Synergy IOL appears to provide better reading speed and is less sensitive to refractive error. Both lenses provided excellent distance, intermediate, and near vision. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(7):428-434.].

Trifocal IOL Implantation in Eyes With Previous Laser Corneal Refractive Surgery: The Impact of Corneal Spherical Aberration on Postoperative Visual Outcomes

PURPOSE

To analyze corneal aberrations and factors affecting visual outcomes after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes previously treated with laser corneal refractive surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective case series included 222 consecutive eyes implanted with the trifocal FineVision Micro-F IOL (PhysIOL) after laser corneal refractive surgery. The series was divided into two groups according to safety outcomes after lensectomy: eyes with loss of one or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [n = 59, 26.5%]) (failed eyes group) and eyes with no loss or gain in CDVA lines (n = 163, 73.4%]) (successful eyes group). Distribution of tomographic corneal aberrations (spherical aberration [Z⁴₀], comatic and root mean square of higher order aberrations [RMS-HOA]), laser corneal refractive surgery error, kappa angle, and CDVA after laser corneal refractive surgery were compared among both groups.

RESULTS

Mean CDVA after lensectomy was 0.15 ± 0.07 logMAR (range: 0.05 to 0.30 logMAR) versus 0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR (range: 0.00 to 0.15 logMAR) in the failed and successful eyes groups, respectively (P < .001). Comparison of both groups showed that failed eyes had a statistically significantly higher grade of hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery than successful eyes measured as mean sphere (+0.71 ± 3.10 diopters [D] [range: -7.75 to +6.00 D] vs -0.46 ± 3.70 D [range: -10.75 to +6.00 D], P < .01), spherical equivalent (+0.27 ± 3.10 D [range: -8.00 to +5.50 D] vs -0.97 ± 3.60 D [range: -12.50 to +4.90 D], P < .05), and percentage of hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery (64% vs 43.5%, P < .05). Corneal aberration analysis showed that mean Z⁴₀ values were significantly more negative in the failed eyes group than in the successful eyes group (+0.07 ± 0.40 mm [range: -0.82 to +0.65 mm] vs +0.18 ± 0.37 mm [range: -0.79 to +0.87 mm], P < .05). Laser corneal refractive surgery cylinder was distributed homogeneously between both groups, as well as coma and RMS-HOA, kappa angle, and CDVA after laser corneal refractive surgery that were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons should consider tomographic corneal spherical aberration after implantation of a trifocal IOL in eyes after keratorefractive surgery, particularly in eyes previously treated with hyperopic laser corneal refractive surgery, to prevent loss of lines of visual acuity after lensectomy. [J Refract Surg. 2022:38(4):222-228.].

Optical and Clinical Outcomes of an Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To assess the in vitro optical quality and halo formation of the AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens (IOL) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) and to evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients who had bilateral implantation of this IOL.

METHODS

The optical quality was evaluated with the PMTF optical bench (Lambda-X). Through-focus modulation transfer function area (MTFa) curves between -5.00 and +2.00 diopters (D) were obtained for 3- and 4.5-mm pupil apertures. The halo was assessed in vitro with a test bench. The clinical study included 30 patients. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity and binocular defocus curve were evaluated 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The through-focus MTFa curve for the 4.5-mm pupil size showed only one peak at distance focus (38.4 units). For the 3-mm pupil size, the through-focus MTFa showed a lower peak of MTFa (28.9 units), located at -0.70 D, and an extended depth of focus up to -2.20 D. The halo formed was larger and more intense compared to a standard monofocal IOL. The clinical outcomes at 6 months revealed satisfactory visual acuity outcomes. All patients achieved a binocular CDVA of 0.1 logMAR or better. The mean visual acuity was better than 0.2 logMAR between +1.00 and -2.00 D of defocus. At a vergence of -2.50 D, the visual acuity was 0.31 ± 0.09 logMAR.

CONCLUSIONS

The AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL provided good distance optical and visual quality and an extended range of focus of approximately 2.00 D, obtaining an optimal or functional visual acuity up to 50 to 40 cm. The halo formed was low intensity overall, but higher intensity than a monofocal IOL. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(3):168-176.].

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.

Trifocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery for myopia and hyperopia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes previously treated with myopic and hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery.

SETTING

Clinica Baviera-AIER-Eye group, Spain.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative case series.

METHODS

The series was divided into 2 groups according to the type of corneal laser refraction (myopic and hyperopic). The main visual and refractive outcome measures included corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and uncorrected distance and near visual acuity, safety, efficacy, and predictability. The secondary outcome measures were percentage of enhancement and Nd:YAG capsulotomy and influence of prelaser magnitude of myopia and hyperopia on the outcome of trifocal IOL implantation.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 868 eyes (543 patients): myopic, n = 319 eyes (36.7%); and hyperopic, n = 549 eyes (63.2%). Three months postoperatively, visual outcomes were poorer in the hyperopic group than those in the myopic group for mean CDVA (0.06 ± 0.05 vs 0.04 ± 0.04, P < .01) and safety (21% vs 12% of CDVA line loss, P < .05) outcomes. However, precision outcomes were worse in the myopic group than those in the hyperopic group, with a mean spherical equivalent of -0.38 ± 0.3 vs -0.17 ± 0.3 (P < .01). Stratification by magnitude of primary laser treatment revealed poorer visual and safety results in the high hyperopia subgroup (>+3.0 diopters [D]) and poorer precision in the high myopia subgroup (<-5.0 D).

CONCLUSIONS

Trifocal IOL implantation after photorefractive surgery in eyes previously treated with myopic ablation achieved good visual outcomes but less predictability in the high myopia subgroup. However, eyes with a previous hyperopic corneal ablation achieved excellent precision but worse visual and safety outcomes in the high hyperopia subgroup.

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction 1 and 12 months after combined implantation of extended depth of focus and trifocal intraocular lenses

Purpose

To assess the 1-month and 12-month postoperative visual performance and subjective outcomes following combined implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a trifocal IOL.

Methods

The study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing refractive lens extraction or cataract surgery with combined implantation of an EDOF IOL (dominant eye) and trifocal IOL. Uncorrected (UDVA) and best-corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuities, and subjective questionnaires were evaluated 1 month and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

The study enrolled 58 consecutive patients. Binocular UDVA, UIVA and UNVA were − 0.08 ± 0.07 logMAR, 0.15 ± 0.14 logMAR and 0.17 ± 0.11 logMAR at 1 month, compared to − 0.09 ± 0.06 logMAR (P = .323), 0.11 ± 0.10 logMAR (P = .030) and 0.13 ± 0.10 logMAR (P = 0.008) at 12 months. Satisfaction was high with 93.1% of patients fulfilled or more than fulfilled postoperatively, and 84.5% and 86.3% reported spectacle independence for near at the respective postoperative assessments. The mean daytime and nighttime quality of vision (QoV) scores were 9.12 ± 0.94 and 7.88 ± 1.74 at 1 month, compared to 9.24 ± 0.78 (P = .183) and 8.26 ± 1.38 (P = .043) at 12 months.

Conclusions

This IOL combination provides good unaided visual acuity at 1 and 12 months postoperatively, with high functional vision and postoperative satisfaction reported at 1 and 12 months. However, a significant improvement in overall nighttime QoV at the 12 months assessment was found.

Clinical Outcomes of Combined Implantation of an Extended Depth of Focus IOL and a Trifocal IOL in a Korean Population

Purpose

To evaluate monocular and binocular visual performance and patient-reported outcomes following combined implantation of a diffractive extended depth of focus (EDoF) IOL (Carl Zeiss AT LARA 829MP) and a diffractive trifocal IOL (Carl Zeiss AT LISA tri 839MP).

Methods

This prospective study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing lens phacoemulsification of cataract and combined implantation of an EDoF IOL in the dominant eye and a trifocal IOL in the nondominant eye. Assessment included uncorrected visual acuity at near distances (UNVA), intermediate distances (UIVA), and far distances (UDVA), uncorrected defocus curve, contrast sensitivity (CS), reading speed, and patient satisfaction, evaluated six months after the surgery with the Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25).

Results

A total of 25 patients were enrolled. At six months postoperatively, outcomes of binocular UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA were superior to those of monocular outcomes. The binocular defocus curve showed significantly better results in comparison with the AT LISA tri IOL eyes at defocus levels of −1.0 D and −1.5 D (P=0.008 and P=0.002, respectively) and compared to the AT LARA IOL eyes at defocus levels of −3.0, −3.5 D, and −4.0 D (P=0.019, P=0.019, and P=0.035, respectively). All of the patients were spectacle-free at far and intermediate distances, while 4% of patients needed spectacles at the near distance. Reading speed showed a rather high and gentle slope curve between 0.1 logMAR and 0.4 logMAR, and optical phenomena were improved after combined implantation of IOLs except halos. There were no significant differences in CS between the binocular and monocular results of each IOL.

Conclusions

The combined implantation of an EDoF IOL and a trifocal IOL seems to be a good option for patients with demands for spectacle independence in their daily life, with minimal photic phenomena.

Impact of residual astigmatism and defocus in eyes with trifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To assess the impact on visual function of different residual astigmatic situations combined with 0.50D negative defocus at different distances in patients with trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Clínica Rementería, Madrid, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

The study included patients with the AcrySof® IQ PanOptixTM IOL. Visual acuity (VA) was measured at far distance (0.00 diopters [D] of vergence), at -1.5D, -2.5D and -3.0D of vergence. Residual astigmatism was induced by adding 0.50 and 1.00D cylindrical lenses placed at 90° (against the rule - ATR), 45° (oblique) and 180° (with the rule - WTR). All measurements were made with distance correction (emmetropia as the reference situation) and with a simulated residual myopia of 0.50D.

RESULTS

The study included 61 eyes of 61 patients. Residual astigmatism of 0.50D and 1.0D was induced in 28 and 33 eyes, respectively. For both groups distance and intermediate VA was better for the reference situation (P<0.001 for all cases). With 1.0D of cylinder (without and with induced defocus), the proportion of patients who lost ≥2 lines was higher for the ATR astigmatism. For near vision, differences were smaller for all simulated situations.

CONCLUSION

Residual astigmatism of up to 0.50D, regardless of its orientation, seems to be tolerated at all distances. For astigmatisms of 1.0D, distance and intermediate VA decreased significantly, and ATR orientations showed worse results in a higher proportion of patients. The combination of astigmatism with residual myopia significantly decreased distance VA while this negative shift had less impact on near VA.

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).

New methodology for measuring intraocular lens performance using acuity reserve

PURPOSE

To validate a new methodology of intraocular lens (IOL) assessment using acuity reserve analysis via area under the curve (AUC) to assess intermediate vision.

SETTING

Study 1 was conducted at 17 sites in Australia, Chile, and Europe. Study 2 was conducted at 15 sites in Australia, Brazil, and Europe.

DESIGN

Post hoc analyses of defocus curve results from 2 clinical trials (study 1: single-arm investigation of the AcrySof IQ PanOptix Trifocal IOL [model TFNT00; Alcon Research LLC]; study 2: comparative investigation of AcrySof PanOptix Trifocal IOL vs the AT LISA Trifocal IOL [model 839MP; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG]).

METHODS

Acuity reserve was calculated using AUC compared with visual demand (logMAR) at various distances. Study 1 validated the model; study 2 compared acuity reserve, for a range of defocus levels, for the 2 IOLs.

RESULTS

The defocus curve (study 1 [149 patients; 298 eyes]) showed good visual acuity (ie, >20/25) at all defocus levels; the AUC estimate showed 2 lines or more of reserve at -2.50 diopters. Comparative post hoc analysis (study 2 [182 patients]) demonstrated significantly improved acuity reserve with PanOptix IOL vs AT LISA IOL at 20 to 40 days postoperatively (P < .001) and 120 to 180 days postoperatively (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Acuity reserve analysis using AUC represents a new methodology for comparative IOL assessment, providing additional detail beyond defocus curve analysis. This method demonstrated that the PanOptix Trifocal IOL was superior to the AT LISA Trifocal IOL (model 839MP) for visual acuity at near to intermediate distances with visual acuity reserve analysis.

Changes in Optical Quality Induced by Tilt and Decentration of a Trifocal IOL and a Novel Extended Depth of Focus IOL in Eyes With Corneal Myopic Ablations

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of decentration and tilt combined with prior myopic ablations on the optical performance of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a novel IOL with an extended depth of focus (EDOF) design.

METHODS

The XACT Mono-EDOF ME4 (Santen Pharmaceutical Co Ltd) and the trifocal FineVision (PhysIOL) IOLs were analyzed with and without simulated previous myopic ablations. The optical quality of the IOLs was evaluated with the PMTF optical bench (LAMBDA-X). The through-focus modulation transfer function (MTF) curves were recorded. Measurements were done for three situations: centered, 0.4 mm decentered, and 4 degrees tilted.

RESULTS

The trifocal IOL showed three peaks of vision and the EDOF IOL showed a far distance peak with intermediate addition. When decentration or tilt were induced, the trifocal IOL showed negligible changes but the EDOF IOL showed a -0.50 diopters (D) shift of the overall curve. With simulated myopic ablation, the trifocal IOL showed a -0.50 D shift of the curve. When tilt or decentration were also induced, the better optical results were found at -1.00 D. With myopic ablations, the EDOF IOL showed a -0.50 D shift of the optical quality and when decentration or tilt were then induced, negative shifts over -1.00 D were found.

CONCLUSIONS

The trifocal IOL was less affected by mis-alignments. When myopic ablations were induced, both lenses decreased their optical quality and the effects of misalignments were higher. In patients who have undergone corneal myopic ablation procedures, proper alignment of the implanted IOL and obtaining effective emmetropia becomes even more critical. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(8):532-537.].

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.

Distribution of ocular biometric parameters and optimal model of anterior chamber depth regression in 28,709 adult cataract patients in China using swept-source optical biometry

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ocular biometric parameters in adult cataract patients from China and create an anterior chamber depth (ACD) regression model.

Methods

The ocular biometric records of 28,709 right eyes of cataract surgery candidates who were treated at Aier Eye Hospitals in nine cities from 2018 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. All measurements were taken with IOLMaster 700. We included patients who were at least 40 years old and were diagnosed with cataract.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 68.6 ± 11.0 years. The mean values recorded were as follows: axial length (AL), 24.17 ± 2.47 mm; mean keratometry (Km) value, 44.26 ± 1.70 D; corneal astigmatism (CA), 1.06 ± 0.96 D; ACD, 3.02 ± 0.45 mm; lens thickness (LT), 4.52 ± 0.45 mm; central corneal thickness (CCT), 0.534 ± 0.04 mm; and white to white (WTW) corneal diameter, 11.64 ± 0.46 mm. ACD correlated positively with AL (Spearman coefficient, 0.544) and WTW (0.300), but negatively with LT (-0.660) and age (-0.285) (all P < 0.01). In the multivariate regression analysis of ACD, which included LT, AL, WTW, sex, Km, CCT, and age, there was a reasonable prediction with adjusted R² = 0.641.

Conclusions

Cataract patients with longer AL and wider WTW have deeper ACD. With increasing age and lens thickening ACD becomes shallower. Based on the standardized coefficients of ACD multivariate regression analysis from the study, LT is the main factor that affects ACD, and is followed by AL.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cataract therapies

PURPOSE

Spin-the misrepresentation of study findings such that the beneficial effects of an intervention are magnified beyond what the results actually show-is a reporting practice that has been shown to influence perceptions of treatment efficacy and clinical decision making. We evaluated the extent of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of cataract surgery and its complications. We also evaluated whether particular study attributes were associated with spin.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relating to cataract treatment. From these search records, screening for eligible studies was done in duplicate. Using a previously developed classification system for spin, we assessed the systematic reviews that met our eligibility criteria for the occurrence of the 9 most severe forms of spin. We performed the evaluation of spin, extracted study characteristics, and appraised the methodological quality of each study using the 16-question AMSTAR-2 scale in duplicate.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 2,059 studies, of which 110 were eligible for data extraction. We found at least 1 form of spin in 30.0% of included systematic reviews (33/110). Six of the 9 types of spin were identified in our sample, the most common being type 3 in 18.2% (20/110) of abstracts. We found no significant association between spin in abstracts, AMSTAR-2 appraisal, and any of the extracted study characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Spin was evident in approximately one-third of the abstracts of evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cataract surgery and associated complications.

Visual quality after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses in highly myopic eyes with different axial lengths

AIM

To analyze postoperative clinical results after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in highly myopic eyes with different axial lengths (ALs).

METHODS

This retrospective study describes 61 eyes of 44 patients that were implanted with trifocal diffractive IOLs (AT LISA tri 839MP). Twenty-one eyes (15 patients) were included in the AL<26 mm group, 19 eyes (13 patients) in the AL≥26 mm and <28 mm group, and 21 eyes (16 patients) in the AL≥28 mm group. Postoperative outcomes, including corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), intermediate and near visual acuity at 167 cd/m² luminance, depth of focus at 85 cd/m² luminance, and objective optical quality parameters assessed using the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS), were compared among the groups at 3mo.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the mean UDVA, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) among the three groups (P>0.05). Better near and intermediate visual acuity (from -1.5 D to -3.0 D) were noted on the defocus curve of the AL<26 mm group (P<0.01 vs AL≥28 mm group). Significantly higher objective scatter index (OSI) values and lower modulation transfer function (MTF) cut-off values, Strehl ratio (SR), and OQAS values (OVs) were observed in the AL≥28 mm group (P<0.01 vs AL<26 mm group). All OQAS parameters had statistically significant correlations with DCNVA and visual acuity at the vergence of -2.5 D (P<0.05 to P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of trifocal IOLs provides good short-term visual and refractive outcomes in highly myopic eyes with different ALs. However, the near vision decreases in the extremely myopic eyes at lower luminance, which is associated with the lower objective optical quality in these eyes.

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.

Vision outcomes with a new monofocal IOL

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the distance, intermediate, and near visual performance of a new IOL (ICB00, Eyhance, Tecnis) and classic monofocal IOL (SN60WF IQ AcrySof, Alcon) after unilateral implantation.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients were unilaterally implanted with the ICB00 Eyhance IOL (study group) and 65 patients with the SN60WF IQ AcrySof (control group). Visual performance was assessed with monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 4 m, corrected intermediate visual acuity (CIVA) and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 60 cm, and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm.

RESULTS

CDVA, UDVA, CNVA, and UNVA values did not differ significantly between the study and control groups (0.02 ± 0.02 vs. 0.03 ± 0.02, p = 0.523; 0.05 ± 0.13 vs. 0.05 ± 0.15, p = 0.637; 0.46 ± 0.17 vs. 0.46 ± 0.15, p = 0.821; and 0.47 ± 0.21 vs. 0.49 ± 0.25, p = 0.612; respectively), whereas the study group showed significantly better results for CIVA (0.28 ± 0.12 vs. 0.38 ± 0.13, p = 0.001) and UIVA (0.31 ± 0.16 vs. 0.41 ± 0.12, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The Eyhance IOL, which features a new optical design based on a continuous power profile, was determined to be superior to a classic monofocal IOL for intermediate visual acuity and not inferior for corrected and uncorrected distance and near visual acuity.

Lens-based surgical correction of presbyopia. Where are we in 2020?

INTRODUCTION

Presbyopia is the progressive and irreversible loss of accommodation due to aging. It is one of the main causes of loss of quality of life in people from 45 years of age, due to the, often novel, dependence on spectacles. The eagerness to correct it by ophthalmologists impulsed by the desire of millions of people who suffer from it, has become one of the main drivers for the development of intraocular lens (IOL) technology over the last twenty years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This review briefly presents the different alternatives that have allowed us to improve the crystalline lens surgical approach of presbyopia; from monofocal lenses and monovision technique, accommodative, refractive, and diffractive multifocal lenses, and finally the most recent extended depth of focus/field lenses known as EDOFs.

RESULTS

Each IOL has its advantages, limitations and disadvantages. Furthermore, there is no single lens that suits the needs of all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary to know the variety of lenses available, and to have an in-depth understanding of their optical properties, as well as the impact that these will have later on their clinical performance and on the visual quality of the patients. This should help us to select the best alternative for each of them.

Trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation in patients after previous corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia

Background

With the difficulties in IOL power calculation and the potential side effects occurring postoperatively, multifocal IOL implantation after previous corneal refractive surgery are rarely reported especially for the trifocal IOL. Herein we report the clinical observation of trifocal IOL implantation in patients with previous myopia excimer laser correction. In this study, a multi-formula average method was performed for the IOLs power calculation to improve the accuracy. Visual and refractive outcomes were analyzed, and the subjective quality of patients’ life was evaluated by questionnaires survey.

Methods

This retrospective case series included patients with previous myopia excimer laser correction who underwent femtosecond laser assisted phacoemulsification and trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839 MP) implantation. Follow-up was done at 1-day, 1-month and 3-month to assess the visual outcomes. Outcome measures were uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, UNVA), manifest refraction, defocus curve, and subjective quality of vision.

Results

Twenty-one Eyes from sixteen patients (14 eyes with previous laser in situ keratomileusis and 7 eyes with previous photorefractive keratectomy) were included. Mean postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) at 3-month was − 0.56 D ± 0.49 SD, wherein, 10 eyes (47.6%) were within ±0.50 D of the desired emmetropia and 19 eyes (90.5%) were within ±1.0 D. Mean monocular UDVA, UIVA and UNVA (logMAR) at last visit were 0.02 ± 0.07, 0.10 ± 0.10, and 0.15 ± 0.11 respectively. Three patients (19%) reported halos and glare in postoperative 3 months, two of them needed to use spectacles to improve the intermediate visual acuity. Fifteen patients (94%) reported a satisfaction score of ≥3.5 out of 4.0, without any difficulty in daily activity. Thirteen patients (81%) did not need spectacles at all distances, while the other 3 patients (19%) used spectacles for near-distance related visual activity. Mean composite score of the VF-14 questionnaire was 95.00 ± 7.29 out of 100.

Conclusions

Trifocal IOL implantation after myopia excimer laser correction could restore good distance, intermediate visual acuity and acceptable near visual acuity, and provide accurate refractive outcomes as well as high spectacles independence rate.

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.

Optical tolerance to rotation of trifocal toric intraocular lenses as a function of the cylinder power

BACKGROUND

The aim was to assess the impact of 5- and 10-degree rotations in the optical quality of a trifocal toric intraocular lens with different amounts of cylinder.

METHODS

Two Physiol Toric intraocular lenses with 1.5 and 3.0 D of cylinder were analysed in three different positions: centred, 5 and 10 degrees rotated. The optical quality of the intraocular lenses was evaluated with the PMTF optical bench through specific perpendicular targets. The analysis was performed by the through-focus modulation transfer function curves and the modulation transfer function corresponding to distance vision (0 D of vergence).

RESULTS

For a centred situation, the through-focus modulation transfer function curves of both intraocular lenses showed the classical three peaks corresponding to the powers of the two principal meridians of the intraocular lenses. When 5 and 10 degrees of rotation were induced, the three peaks were attenuated in both cases. The case with the intraocular lens with 3.0 D of cylinder and 10 degrees of rotation showed the worst optical quality and a significant loss of trifocality. The modulation transfer function values obtained for distance vision also showed the worst optical quality for the intraocular lens with 3.0 D of cylinder and 10 degrees of rotation.

CONCLUSION

Rotations over 5 degrees decreased the optical quality of trifocal toric intraocular lenses, being this reduction moderate from 5 to 10 degrees for low levels of cylinder (≤1.5 D). For mid-high levels of cylinder (≥3.0 D), rotations over 5 degrees cause a significant loss of optical quality at all object distances.

Results of a clinical evaluation of a trifocal intraocular lens in Japan

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a new trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract removal in patients living in Japan.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective multicenter clinical study.

METHODS

One hundred and thirty-five eyes of 68 patients (19 men, 49 women; mean age, 66.3 ± 7.4 years) were followed for 6 months. Trifocal IOLs with focal points at near, intermediate, and distance were implanted bilaterally in eyes with less than 1 diopter of corneal astigmatism. The visual acuity (VA) at distance, 60 and 40 centimeters (cm), and contrast sensitivities were measured. Patients completed quality-of-life questionnaires preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean bilateral logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution VA at 5 meters (m), 60 cm, and 40 cm were, respectively: uncorrected, - 0.104 ± 0.095, - 0.065 ± 0.111, and - 0.042 ± 0.105; and distance-corrected, - 0.197 ± 0.076, - 0.112 ± 0.111, and - 0.073 ± 0.111. The contrast sensitivities at distance and near were within the normal range at all spatial frequencies under photopic conditions. Patients reported complete spectacle independence in 75.0% of cases. Total use of spectacles was reported by 1.5% and partial by 20.6%; the purpose of spectacle use was primarily for near visual tasks. Mild-to-moderate glare was reported by 65.7% of patients and halos by 70.1%; only 1.5% of subjects reported severe glare and halos.

CONCLUSIONS

This new trifocal IOL provides equally good uncorrected VAs at distance, intermediate, and near, and decreases spectacle dependence in daily life. Patients frequently report mild-to-moderate glare and halos, and patients should be informed about these before implantation.

Visual quality and patient satisfaction with a trifocal intraocular lens and its new toric version

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the visual quality and subjective outcomes of a trifocal spherical intraocular lens (IOL) and its new toric version.

SETTING

Clínica Rementería, Madrid, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients had bilateral implantation of the AcrySof IQ PanOptix spherical or toric IOL. Three months postoperatively, monocular and the binocular uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities; binocular defocus curves; and binocular contrast sensitivity function (CSF) were assessed. Patient satisfaction was evaluated with the Catquest 9SF questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study comprised 250 eyes (166 with spherical IOL; 84 with toric IOL) of 125 patients. Both groups had good monocular visual acuity at all distances with no statistically significant differences between groups. The mean monocular uncorrected acuity in the spherical group was 0.06 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) ± 0.07 (SD), 0.20 ± 0.10 logMAR, and 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR for far, intermediate, and near, respectively, and in the toric group, 0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR, 0.23 ± 0.20 logMAR, and 0.07 ± 0.12 logMAR, respectively. Defocus curves showed a visual acuity of 0.1 logMAR or better between -2.5 diopters (D) and +0.5 D with no differences between groups. The CSF values were within normal ranges with both IOLs. The questionnaire showed high rates of patient satisfaction with no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The visual outcomes with the 2 IOLs were similar. With optimum implantation and alignment, the trifocal toric IOL seems to provide visual quality and patient satisfaction that is equivalent to that with the nontoric version with the same platform.

Subjective Perception Of Trifocal IOL Performance, Including Toric Models

Purpose

To study the patients’ perception of trifocal IOL (Panoptix™) performance.

Patients and methods

60 eyes of 35 were implanted with trifocal IOL. Refractive (sphere – S, cylinder – Cyl and spherical equivalent – SE, all in D) and visual (distance uncorrected – VAsc, distance corrected – VAcc, intermediate – IntVA, near uncorrected – NVAsc and distance corrected near – NVAcc, all in LogMAR) results were recorded. Patients were asked about satisfaction (per eye), spectacle independence, near and intermediate activities, distance activities in quantity and quality, finally about personal facial care (per patient). Comparison was made between non-toric (48) and toric models, genders (18 males) and between bilateral (25 patients) and unilateral implantations. Results were correlated to age and IOL power.

Results

With a SE of mean −0.3 ± 0.5 D, cases achieved mean VAsc 0.09 ± 0.1 (~20/25), VAcc 0.05 ± 0.1 (~20/22), IntVA 0.05 ± 0.9 (~20/22), NVAsc 0.05 ± 0.09 (~~20/22) and NVAcc 0.04 ± 0.8 (~~20/22). Mean level of satisfaction was 85.7 ± 16.5, spectacle independence 96.0 ± 10.6, near activities 95.4 ± 9.8, intermediate activities 97.7 ± 6.4, quantity of distance activities 90.2 ± 10.1, quality of distance activities 88.0 ± 12.1 and facial care 92.6 ± 11.9. All comparisons (non-toric and toric, male and female and bilateral and unilateral implantation) were statistically insignificant (P>0.05). Correlation with age and IOL power was also statistically insignificant (P>0.05).

Conclusion

As perceived by patients, trifocal IOL resulted in very high level of satisfaction. This satisfaction is reflected on diverse visual activities. This level is achieved regardless of gender, IOL model or even unilateral implantation. It is also achieved regardless the age of patients or preoperative eye status.

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

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical performance of bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials was conducted.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature retrieval of PubMed, Science Direct and EMBASE was performed in this systematic review. Clinical outcomes included visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were 8 RCTs included in this study. The difference of uncorrected near VA (UNVA) between the bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs had no significance [MD = 0.02, 95%CI: (- 0.03,0.06)]. There was no significant difference in the distant-corrected near VA (DCNVA) with MD of 0.04 [95%CI (- 0.02, 0.10)]. Compared with trifocal group, the uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) [MD = 0.09,95%CI:(0.01,0.17)] was significantly worse in the bifocal group. No difference was found in distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA) [MD = 0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.04, 0.23)] between two groups. Analysis on AT LISA subgroup indicated the bifocal group had worse intermediate VA than trifocal group (AT LISA tri 839 M) [MD = 0.18, 95%CI: (0.12, 0.24) for UIVA and MD = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.13, 0.25) for DCIVA]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the uncorrected distance VA (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [MD = 0.01, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.04) for UDVA; MD = 0.00, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.01) for CDVA]. The postoperative refraction of bifocal group was similar to that of trifocal group [MD = -0.08, 95% CI: (- 0.19, 0.03) for spherical equivalent; MD = -0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.21, 0.03) for cylinder; MD = -0.09, 95% CI: (- 0.27, 0.08) for sphere]. No difference was found for spectacle independence, posterior capsular opacification (PCO) incidence and patient satisfaction between bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs. [RR = 0.89, 95% CI: (0.71, 1.12) for spectacle independence; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: (0.50, 6.54) for PCO incidence; RR = 0.98, 5% CI: (0.86, 1.12) for patient satisfaction].

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving trifocal IOLs, especially AT LISA tri 839 M, have a better intermediate VA than those receiving bifocal IOLs. Near and distance visual performance, spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction of bifocal IOLs were similar to those of trifocal IOLs.

Comparison of visual quality and subjective outcomes among 3 trifocal intraocular lenses and 1 bifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To compare visual quality and subjective outcomes between 3 trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and 1 bifocal IOL.

SETTING

Clínica Oftalmológica Martínez de Carneros, Madrid, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

This study comprised patients having bilateral phacoemulsification and implantation of an AcrySof IQ PanOptix, AT LISA tri 839MP, FineVision, or Tecnis ZLB00 IOL. Postoperative evaluation included logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA); reading speed; through-focus logMAR visual acuity at 100%, 50%, and 12% contrast; and contrast sensitivity function (CSF) under photopic and mesopic conditions. Subjective outcomes were assessed using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 160 patients, 40 in each group. Six months postoperatively, there were no statistically significant between-group differences in the spherical equivalent, UDVA, CDVA, DCNVA, reading performance, or CSF under photopic and mesopic conditions. The defocus curves at 100%, 50%, and 15% of contrast showed that trifocal IOLs, especially the AcrySof PanOptix, had better intermediate performance than the bifocal IOL and comparable outcomes at far and near distances. There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative NEI VFQ-25 questionnaire scores between the 4 IOL groups.

CONCLUSION

The trifocal IOLs provided better intermediate distance vision than the bifocal IOL without compromising distance or near vision.

Intraocular lens correction of presbyopia

The continued development of intraocular lens (IOL) technology has led to a dramatic improvement in refractive outcomes. New and innovative ways of achieving the desired postoperative refractive goals continue to be developed. This article aims to review the currently available IOL modalities for correction of presbyopia at the time of cataract surgery, including reference to high-quality comparative studies, where available, and discussion of strengths as well as limitations of the currently available IOL technologies. It has been shown that multifocal compared to monofocal IOL was associated with higher rates of spectacle independence, but higher rates and severity of symptomatic glare as well as reduced contrast sensitivity. Within multifocal IOLs, diffractive compared to refractive IOLs tended to have better near vision and a lower rate of symptomatic glare. Extended depth-of-focus IOLs compared to diffractive multifocal IOL demonstrated equal or superior intermediate visual acuity, with less than or equal rates of glare. Accommodative IOLs represent a broad range of technologies that continue to develop, and new technologies offering opportunities for postoperative adjustment of refractive outcome are emerging.

Trifocal versus Bifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens Implantation after Cataract Surgery or Refractive Lens Exchange: a Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy between trifocal and bifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

METHODS

Through PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, we searched potentially relevant articles published from 1990 to 2018. Defocus curves, visual acuities (VAs) were measured as primary outcomes. Spectacle dependence, postoperative refraction, contrast sensitivity (CS), glare, and higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were measured as secondary outcomes. Effects were pooled using random-effects method.

RESULTS

We included 11 clinical trials, with a total of 787 eyes (395 subjects). The trifocal IOL group showed better binocular distance VA corrected with defocus levels of -0.5, -1.0, -1.5, and -2.5 diopter than the bifocal IOL group (All P ≤ 0.004). The trifocal IOL group showed better monocular uncorrected distance and intermediate VAs (mean difference [MD], -0.04 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07, -0.01; P = 0.006 and MD, -0.07 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.13, -0.01; P = 0.03, respectively). Postoperative refraction, glare, CS, and HOAs were not significantly different from each other.

CONCLUSION

The overall findings indicate that trifocal diffractive IOL implantation is better than the bifocal diffractive IOL in intermediate VA, and provides similar or better in distance and near VAs without any major deterioration in the visual quality.

Visual outcomes, spectacle independence and satisfaction after diffractive trifocal intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE

To investigate visual outcomes, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction after trifocal intraocular lens implantation.

METHODS

A retrospective study conducted on 5,186 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and were implanted with a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (FineVision Micro F, PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium).

RESULTS

The mean pre-operative keratometry was 43.61±1.55 D, and mean keratometric cylinder was -0.86±0.66 D. At 3 months post-operatively, values changed to 43.59±1.56 and -0.71±0.46 D, respectively. Mean sphere varied from 2.04±2.60 to 0.14±0.38 D, and mean spherical equivalent from 1.64±2.61 to -0.05±0.36 D. More than 60% of the patients achieved better corrected distance visual acuity. The majority had a final residual refractive error (predictability) lower than 1 D (99.1%), with 14.3% needing optical adjustment (bioptics). Posterior capsulotomy was performed in 2.2%, and the lens was replaced in 5 patients. A high percentage of patients were satisfied in terms of vision and spectacle independence at all distances. Although 2% referred to worsening of night vision quality, only 2% were not very satisfied and 20 patients were dissatisfied. The causes were: blurred vision (7 cases), spectacle dependence (10), dysphotopsia (7), and dry eye (4).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of this model provided good visual performance in all distances, as well as high levels of spectacle independence and satisfaction.

Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refractive, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To present the outcomes of hybrid multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to compare with refractive and diffractive multifocal IOLs (MFIOLs).

Methods

Three hundred twenty eyes (160 patients) underwent cataract surgery with randomized IOLs bilateral implantation. Changes in uncorrected and distance-corrected logMAR distance, intermediate and near (UNVA and DCNVA) visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), presence of dysphotopsia, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction were analyzed.

Results

Postoperative VA in the hybrid (OptiVis) group was improved in all distances (p < 0.001). OptiVis acted superiorly to monofocal IOLs in UNVA and DCNVA (p < 0.001 for both) and to refractive ones in DCNVA (p < 0.005). Distance, mesopic, without glare CS in OptiVis was lower than in the monofocal group and similar to other MFIOLs. No differences in dysphotopsia pre- and postoperatively and spectacle independence in near for OptiVis and refractive MFIOLs were detected. OptiVis patients were more satisfied than those with monofocal IOLs (p=0.015).

Conclusions

After cataract surgery, patients with OptiVis improved VA in all distances. Near and intermediate VA was better than monofocal, and DCNVA was better than the refractive group. CS was lower in OptiVis than in the monofocal group, but there was no difference between MFIOLs. Patient satisfaction was higher in OptiVis than in the monofocal group. This trial is registered with NCT03512626.