Clinical outcomes with toric intraocular lenses planned using an optical low coherence reflectometry ocular biometer with a new toric calculator

Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes of Two Toric Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of two toric presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

Non-randomized prospective comparative study including 86 eyes of 51 patients (age 43-83 years) that underwent cataract surgery with implantation of one of the following two IOLs: TECNIS Toric Synergy (Johnson & Johnson Vision) (Synergy group) or AT LISA tri toric 939MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec) (ATLISA group). Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated during a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

At 6 months after surgery, all eyes achieved uncorrected distance visual acuity 20/25 or better in both groups, whereas 96.2% and 100% of eyes achieved uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) 20/25 or better in the ATLISA and Synergy groups, respectively. All eyes achieved postoperative mesopic UNVA 20/30 or better in both IOL groups; 96.2% and 100% of eyes had a manifest cylinder ≤ 0.50 D at 6 months in ATLISA and Synergy groups, respectively. Mean magnitude of error was 0.04 ± 0.20 and - 0.04 ± 0.09 D in ATLISA and Synergy groups, respectively (p = 0.05). In the defocus curve, significant differences were found between IOL groups for most of distance-corrected visual acuities, except those corresponding to defocus of 0 D (p = 0.268) and - 1 D (p = 0.361).

CONCLUSIONS

The two toric presbyopia-correcting IOLs evaluated provide an efficacious astigmatic correction combined with a successful distance, intermediate and near visual rehabilitation. The visual performance seems to be better for most visual demands with the TECNIS Toric Synergy IOL, especially for distances closer than 40 cm.

Total keratometry for toric intraocular lens calculation: comparison from two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers

Purpose

To compare the astigmatism prediction accuracy of total keratometry (TK) from the IOLMaster 700 and total corneal power (TCP) from Anterion based on swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) technology in toric intraocular lens (toric IOL) calculation.

Design

A retrospective observational study.

Methods

Total corneal astigmatism (TCA) were obtained using IOLMaster 700 and Anterion. Z CALC 2.0 was used to calculate the expected postoperative refractive astigmatism in conjunction with TCA. Prediction errors (PE) in refractive outcomes was analyzed 1 month postoperatively using the vector analysis by the Holladay method, including the mean vector PE magnitude, percentage of cases with vector PE in certain intervals, and the centroid PE.

Results

A total of 56 eyes from 56 patients were enrolled in the study with an insertion of an AT TORBI 709 toric IOL. The difference in mean vector PE of postoperative refractive astigmatism between TK and TCP was not statistically significant (0.48D versus 0.46D, P = 0.281). TK and TCP yielded 27.3 and 40.0% of eyes with vector PE ≤ 0.25D, and 58.2 and 63.6% with vector PE ≤ 0.5D (both P > 0.05), respectively. TK and TCP resulted in similar ATR centroid PE of 0.10D@35° ± 0.60D and 0.15D@22° ± 0.57D, respectively, and there were no significant differences between x-PE component and y-PE component.

Conclusion

IOLMaster 700 and Anterion provided comparable astigmatic predictability in toric IOL implantation using total keratometry and Z CALC 2.0.

Accuracy of Astigmatism Calculation with the Barrett, Panacea, and enVista Toric Calculators

PURPOSE

To evaluate residual refractive astigmatism using the Panacea and enVista toric calculators, compared to the gold-standard Barrett toric calculator.

DESIGN

A retrospective and comparative study was conducted in one center.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of all patients with a diagnosis of senile cataracts and regular corneal astigmatism, without previous corneal or intraocular surgery, who underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a toric intraocular lens, who had pre- and postoperative corneal topography, biometry, and refraction measurements.

RESULTS

The frequency of preoperative astigmatism according to the axis was 70 (84%) eyes showing with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism, 9 (14%) eyes with against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism, and 1 (2%) eye with oblique astigmatism. Regarding astigmatism prediction errors, there were statistically significant differences between the enVista and Panacea calculators (median of 0.39, 0.18, and 0.52 for Barrett, enVista, and Panacea, respectively). The residual astigmatism prediction error centroid was similar for the Barrett and enVista toric calculators, and both were lower compared to the Panacea calculator (x-component p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The enVista toric calculator incorporating the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) toric calculator provides similar results to the gold-standard Barrett calculator.

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.

Comparative evaluation of intraoperative aberrometry and Barrett's toric calculator in toric intraocular lens implantation

Purpose

Barrett toric calculator (BTC) is known for its accuracy in toric IOL (tIOL) calculation over standard calculators; however, there is no study in literature to compare it with real-time intraoperative aberrometry (IA). The aim was to compare the accuracy of BTC and IA in predicting refractive outcomes in tIOL implantation.

Methods

This was an institution-based prospective, observational study. Patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification with tIOL implantation were enrolled. Biometry was obtained from Lenstar-LS 900 and IOL power calculated using online BTC; however, IOL was implanted as per IA (Optiwave Refractive Analysis, ORA, Alcon) recommendation. Postoperative refractive astigmatism (RA) and spherical equivalent (SE) were recorded at one month, and respective prediction errors (PEs) were calculated using predicted refractive outcomes for both methods. The primary outcome measure was a comparison between mean PE with IA and BTC, and secondary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), postoperative RA, and SE at one month. SPSS Version-21 was used; P < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

Thirty eyes of 29 patients were included. Mean arithmetic and mean absolute PEs for RA were comparable between BTC (-0.70 ± 0.35D; 0.70 ± 0.34D) and IA (0.77 ± 0.32D; 0.80 ± 0.39D) (P = 0.09 and 0.09, respectively). Mean arithmetic PE for residual SE was significantly lower for BTC (-0.14 ± 0.32D) than IA (0.001 ± 0.33D) (-0.14 ± 0.32D; P = 0.002); however, there was no difference between respective mean absolute PEs (0.27 ± 0.21 D; 0.27 ± 0.18; P = 0.80). At one-month, mean UCDVA, RA, and SE were 0.09 ± 0.10D, -0.57 ± 0.26D, and -0.18 ± 0.27D, respectively.

Conclusion

Both IA and BTC give reliable and comparable refractive results for tIOL implantation.

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.

Comparison of accuracy of a toric calculator with predicted vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of postoperative residual astigmatism prediction using the Barrett toric calculator with predicted vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA).

SETTING

Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

We included 602 eyes with monofocal nontoric intraocular lens implantation. Biometry and PCA were obtained from the IOLMaster 700. Anticipated postoperative refractive astigmatism was calculated with the Barrett toric calculator for predicted and measured PCA, and the astigmatism prediction errors (PEs) for each were calculated using vector analysis. The vector PE magnitudes and percentage of eyes within certain amounts of vector PEs were compared between 2 methods.

RESULTS

Compared with the Barrett toric calculator with predicted PCA, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA produced significantly smaller mean vector PE (0.54 diopter [D] vs 0.57 D) and higher percentage of eyes with vector PE of ≤0.5 D (57.6% [347/602] vs 52.5% [316/602]) (both P < .05). In eyes with predicted residual astigmatism of ≥0.5 D, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA again yielded a significantly higher percentage of eyes with vector PE of ≤0.5 D (51.2% [226/441] vs 44.7% [197/441], P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Accuracy of residual astigmatism prediction is improved using the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA rather than predicted PCA.

Measurements of Anterior and Posterior Corneal Curvatures with OCT and Scheimpflug Biometers in Patients with Low Total Corneal Astigmatism

Background: Posterior keratometry measurements are evolving features of the optical biometers. The differences between devices have bigger impact for the low astigmatism values. The majority of adults present the corneal astigmatism below 1.5 D. Objectives: To compare the total corneal astigmatism measured with two different technologies in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism below 1.5 D. Material and Methods: Three automated exams were performed on each of the two devices: swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and Scheimpflug biometers. The anterior and total corneal astigmatism and power were analysed. Statistical comparisons were performed for within-subject standard deviation, repeatability, Bland−Altman and vector analysis. Results: Twenty-nine eyes of twenty-seven patients were included. The limits of agreement between anterior and total corneal astigmatism were narrower for the SS-OCT than for the Scheimpflug biometer (−0.16 to 0.29 D and −0.40 to 0.39 D, respectively). The >0.5 D difference between SS-OCT and Scheimpflug total astigmatism was noticed in 5 (17%) of cases. The difference between mean total keratometric power for both devices was statistically significant (0.2 D, p < 0.001). SS-OCT total corneal flat measurements had worse repeatability than Scheimpflug (p = 0.007). Conclusions: For the corneal astigmatism <1.5 D, the difference between anterior and total corneal astigmatism measured with SS-OCT was clinically not significant. The mean anterior and total keratometry values obtained with Scheimpflug and SS-OCT biometers are not interchangeable.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

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

One-year Results of Health-related and Vision-related Quality of Life After Clear Lens Extraction and Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

PURPOSE

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) are effective in treating presbyopia before cataracts develop. This study measured health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) after clear lens extraction (CLE) and MIOL implantation.

DESIGN

Before-and-after study METHODS: Patients were treated in Medilaser Coronaria, CorGroup, Oulu, Finland. HRQoL was measured by a generic 15-dimension (15D) instrument. VRQoL was measured with Visual Function Index-14 (VF-14) questionnaire.

RESULTS

CLE and MIOL implantation was performed in 137 patients. The patient age was 57 ± 6.2 years (mean ± standard deviation), and 58% were women. The near add was 2.1±0.3 diopters (D). The overall HRQoL 15D score increased from 0.938±0.058 to 0.955±0.057 at 6 months (P < .0001 vs baseline) and to 0.948±0.060 at 1 year (P = .02 vs baseline). The VRQoL VF14 score increased from 85.32±15.57 to 96.57±5.07 at 6 months (P < .0001 vs baseline) and to 96.61±6.48 at 1 year (P < .0001 vs baseline). The increase of HRQoL was correlated with the increase of VRQoL (P < .04).

CONCLUSIONS

CLE and MIOL implantation improved HRQoL and VRQoL compared to spectacles in this 1-year follow-up study. Improvement of HRQoL was correlated with VRQoL.

Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes of diffractive bifocal toric and trifocal toric intraocular lenses 12 months after implantation in patients with moderate to high myopia

PURPOSE

To compare the visual and refractive outcomes of bifocal toric and trifocal toric intraocular lenses (IOL) in patients with moderate to high myopia at 12 months after implantation.

METHOD

This is a prospective and comparative study. In 120 eyes with moderate to high myopia and astigmatism, bifocal toric IOLs (n = 60 eyes) or trifocal toric IOLs (n = 60 eyes) were implanted. Eyes with axial lengths from 24.0 to 26.5 mm were included. Postoperative examinations measured near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA), along with refractive measurements, binocular defocus curves, and patient satisfaction with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.

RESULTS

For uncorrected- and corrected distance intermediate VA, the trifocal group showed significantly better VA at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months than the bifocal group. Driving subscale scores from the questionnaire were significantly better in the trifocal than the bifocal group. Concerning the binocular defocus curve, uncorrected distance VA was significantly higher in the trifocal than bifocal group at test distances of -1.5 D.

CONCLUSIONS

Both trifocal and bifocal toric IOLs effectively corrected the near, intermediate, and distance vision in patients with moderate to high myopia and astigmatism. However, intermediate vision was significantly better in eyes with trifocal than bifocal toric IOLs.

Effect of defocus combined with rotation on the optical performance of trifocal toric IOLs

PURPOSE

To objectively analyze the optical quality of the FineVision Toric intraocular lens (IOL) with two cylinder powers when different combinations of rotations and residual refractive errors are induced.

METHODS

This study assessed the FineVision Toric IOL with two different cylinder powers: 1.5 and 3.0 diopters (D). Three different rotation positions were considered: centered, 5° and 10° rotated. An optical bench (PMTF) was used for optical analysis. The optical quality of the IOLs was calculated by the modulation transfer function (MTF) at five different focal points (0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 D).

RESULTS

The MTF averaged value of the reference situation was 38.58 and 37.74 for 1.5 and 3.0 D of cylinder, respectively. For the 1.5 D cylinder, the combination of 5° of rotation with a defocus of 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.0 D induced a decrease on the MTF of 12.39, 19.94, 23.43, 24.23 units, respectively. When induced rotation was 10°, the MTF decrease was 17.26, 23.40, 24.33, 24.48 units, respectively. For the 3.0 D cylinder, the combination of 5° with 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.0 D of defocus, induced a decrease on the MTF of 12.51, 18.97, 22.36, 22.48 units, respectively. When induced rotation was 10°, the MTF decrease was: 18.42, 21.57, 23.08, and 23.61 units, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For both FineVision Toric IOLs there is a certain optical tolerance to rotations up to 5° or residual refractive errors up to 0.25 D. Situations over these limits and their combination would affect the visual quality of patients implanted with these trifocal toric IOLs.

Comparing Visual Acuity, Low Contrast Acuity and Refractive Error After Implantation of a Low Cylinder Power Toric Intraocular Lens or a Non-Toric Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To compare uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity, low contrast acuity, residual refraction and ocular biometry after low cylinder power toric intraocular lens (IOL) or non-toric IOL implantation.

Patients and Methods

This was a non-interventional comparative study of visual outcomes after uncomplicated cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery with either a low cylinder (Low_Cyl) or non-toric (Non_Toric) IOL of similar design implanted (AcrySof^® T2 IQ Toric IOL and AcrySof^® IQ IOL). Subjects in both groups had to have been eligible for the low cylinder IOL based on biometry. They had to have uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/32 (0.2 logMAR) or better at the time of their single diagnostic study visit. Clinical evaluation included the manifest refraction, visual acuity (VA), low contrast VA and ocular biometry.

Results

A total of 94 eyes were enrolled, 51 Low_Cyl and 43 Non_Toric. The mean manifest refractive cylinder was statistically significantly lower (~0.25 D) in the Low_Toric group (p < 0.01) and significantly more eyes had 0.25 D or less of refractive cylinder in that group (p = 0.03). The orientation of the preoperative anterior corneal astigmatism was a significant cofactor, with the difference between groups more evident when astigmatism was against the rule. Uncorrected high contrast visual acuity was statistically significantly better in the Low_Toric group (p = 0.02) as was the percentage of eyes with 20/20 visual acuity (p = 0.05). Uncorrected low contrast visual acuity was not statistically significantly different in mesopic or photopic conditions.

Conclusion

The low cylinder power toric IOL provided better uncorrected visual acuity and lower residual refractive cylinder than a similar non-toric IOL after cataract surgery.

Astigmatism Management with Intraocular Lens Surgery

Corneal astigmatism is common. More than 40% of patients undergoing cataract surgery have 1 diopter (D) power or more of astigmatism, which left untreated is visually significant. Because toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) are available, the current standard of care is to offer treatment of astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to October 2019. Search words included astigmatism, corneal astigmatism, toric IOLs, alignment, and IOL calculation. Studies evaluated included review articles regarding the origin and history of astigmatism, the diagnosis and management of the disease, and the history of surgical management options for astigmatism. Other studies evaluated in this review included clinical trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective analysis of surgical refractive outcomes. Prediction of refractive outcomes was evaluated with a review of IOL calculators and their use in lens prediction for cataract surgery. Evaluation of these articles also showed improved uncorrected visual acuity with the use of toric IOLs in patients undergoing cataract surgery. New diagnostic technology, new toric IOLs, updated lens formulas, intraoperative guidance, and advanced imaging technology and software have contributed to improvements in the surgical correction of astigmatism.

How Can We Improve Toric Intraocular Lens Calculation Methods? Current Insights

In this paper, we review current strategies for calculating toric intraocular lenses (IOLs). We discuss the prevalence and clinical relevance of astigmatism and the assessment of toric IOL candidates. We detail recommendations for evaluating astigmatism and current biometry and IOL power calculation techniques. Finally, error sources and results of current toric IOL calculators are discussed.

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.

Long-term objective and subjective outcomes following bilateral implantation of diffractive bifocal or trifocal intraocular lenses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the objective and subjective outcomes after the bilateral implantation of a diffractive bifocal and trifocal intraocular lens.

METHODS

This is a case-control, single-center observational study which included 27 patients; 16 patients were implanted bilaterally with the bifocal AcrySof IQ ReSTOR+3.0D and 11 patients with the trifocal AT LISA tri 839MP. Uncorrected visual acuity at distance, intermediate, and near under mesopic and photopic conditions using ETDRS charts with 10% and 100% contrast, corrected distance visual acuity, and binocular defocus curve in photopic conditions; binocular contrast sensitivity under mesopic and photopic conditions for far and near distances were assessed. The Visual Function Questionnaire-25 questionnaire was used to assess patients' satisfaction. All the measurements were performed 6-24 months after cataract surgery.

RESULTS

The ReSTOR group had better binocular uncorrected near visual acuity in photopic conditions with low and high contrast charts (p = 0.040 and p = 0.033, respectively), as well as in far contrast sensitivity measurement under mesopic conditions with a spatial frequency of 3 cycles per degree (p = 0.034). There was not a significant difference between the two study groups in uncorrected near, intermediate or distance vision under mesopic conditions. The AT LISA tri study group had better subjective outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Both intraocular lenses restore visual acuity after cataract surgery. The ReSTOR intraocular lens provides better objective outcomes than the AT LISA tri, although the latter provides better subjective outcomes. The relevance of this study is the evaluation of both objective and subjective outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes of Toric Intraocular Lenses: Differences in Expected Outcomes When Using a Calculator That Considers Effective Lens Position and the Posterior Cornea vs One That Does Not

Purpose

To compare toric intraocular lens (IOL) outcome accuracy after using an online toric calculator that accounted for posterior corneal astigmatism versus a traditional calculator that only accounted for anterior corneal astigmatism.

Patients and Methods

This was a single-arm, non-masked, non-randomized prospective study in a single private practice in Norfolk, Virginia, USA, evaluating clinical outcomes of toric IOL implantation based on a calculator that considered posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and effective lens position (ELP). Of interest was the distribution of the residual refraction (sphere and cylinder) at 40–70 days postoperative. Residual refractive cylinder (RRC) was compared to the back-calculated theoretical results using a legacy calculator that did not consider PCA. Distance visual acuity (best-corrected and uncorrected) and the manifest refraction were also measured, along with preoperative and postoperative keratometry.

Results

Forty-six eyes of 34 subjects were available for analysis. All eyes had a spherical equivalent refraction within 0.5D of intended. Uncorrected visual acuity was 20/25 or better in 86% of eyes targeted for emmetropia. Residual cylinder was 0.50D or less in 96% of eyes, with a maximum of 0.75D measured. The difference between residual cylinder and the expected cylinder from calculations was significantly lower for the calculator that included consideration of PCA and ELP relative to the one that did not.

Conclusion

Use of a toric IOL calculator that includes consideration of posterior corneal astigmatism is recommended to optimize clinical outcomes.

Effects of Bifocal versus Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens Implantation on Visual Quality after Cataract Surgery

Purpose

To compare the effects of bifocal versus trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation on visual quality after phacoemulsification in patients with cataracts.

Methods

Eighty-eight eyes from 63 patients were analyzed. Trifocal (AT LISA tri 839MP), bifocal (AcrySof IQ ReSTOR) and bifocal (Tecnis MF ZLB00) IOLs were implanted into 53, 18, and 17 eyes, respectively. Uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, refractive errors, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction were measured at 1 week and 1 month after surgery. Refractive error was converted to a spherical equivalent and compared to predicted refraction calculated by IOL calculation formulas.

Results

Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity did not differ significantly between groups. One month after surgery, the mean refractive errors were −0.07 diopters (D) in the AT LISA tri 839MP group, +0.18 D in the AcrySof IQ ReSTOR group, and +0.31 D in the Tecnis MF ZLB00 group (p < 0.001). The predictive accuracy of IOL calculation formulas did not differ between groups. Contrast sensitivity, satisfaction, and spectacle independence in the trifocal group were comparable with those of the two bifocal groups.

Conclusions

Trifocal IOL and two different types of bifocal IOL implantation were all effective for improving visual quality, although refractive error in patients with trifocal IOL shows myopic tendencies.

Refractive and Visual Outcomes and Rotational Stability of Toric Intraocular Lenses in Eyes With and Without Previous Ocular Surgeries: A Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual and refractive outcomes and rotational stability of toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes with previous ocular surgeries.

METHODS

This controlled, longitudinal cohort study included a total of 133 eyes (59 study cases with a history of corneal, vitreoretinal, and/or glaucoma surgery and 74 randomly selected controls without a history of ocular surgery) that had cataract and corneal astigmatism treated with toric IOL implantation. Postoperative outcomes were recorded at postoperative 1 month and 3 to 12 months.

RESULTS

Refractive prediction errors were within ±1.00 diopter (D) of target in 93.5% and 88.4% of the study cases at postoperative 1 month and 3 to 12 months, respectively. They were within ±0.50 D of target in 56.5% and 60.5% of the cases during the same follow-up intervals, respectively. Study cases showed statistically significantly inferior uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) compared to controls at 1 month postoperatively (0.27 ± 0.24 and 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR, respectively, P = .027) but not during the later follow-up (0.19 ± 0.19 and 0.16 ± 0.19 logMAR, respectively, P = .431). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was slightly lower in the study cases than in controls at 1 month postoperatively (0.13 ± 0.16 and 0.07 ± 0.14, respectively, P = .005) and subsequent follow-up months (0.10 ± 0.13 and 0.03 ± 0.10, respectively, P < .001). Of the examined study cases, 93.9% and 88.4% had IOL axes within 5° of intended axis at postoperative 1 month and 3 to 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Toric IOLs provided significant and sustained improvement in visual acuity and refraction in eyes with a history of prior ophthalmic surgery. Refractive outcomes achieved postoperatively were comparable to those in eyes without a prior history of ophthalmic surgery, although the rate of visual recovery may be different. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(12):781-788.].

Predictability of different calculators in the minimization of postoperative astigmatism after implantation of a toric intraocular lens

Purpose

To assess the efficacy of five calculators for toric intraocular lenses (IOL).

Methods

Retrospective comparative case series in cataract patients undergoing implantation of trifocal toric IOLs (PhysIOL FineVision POD FT). Inclusion criteria were age-related cataract and a corneal astigmatism between 0.90D and 4.50D. Refractive astigmatism predictability of five different toric calculators or calculation methods were compared. Furthermore, two groups were differentiated according to the type of astigmatism. The mean absolute error and the centroid errors in the predicted residual astigmatism from each calculator were evaluated.

Results

Fifty-one eyes of 43 patients were included in the study. For the standard toric calculator using anterior keratometry values only, the centroid prediction error was 0.39D±0.41@166º, which was reduced by the application of the PhysIOL toric calculator that includes the Abulafia-Koch regression formula and adjustment for the effective lens position (0.05D±0.34@167º), and also by the application of the Barrett toric calculator (0.07D±0.28@160º). Regarding the techniques that directly evaluate posterior corneal surface, the Holladay toric calculator, using total corneal power provided by a color-LED topographer, generated better results (0.10D±0.44@156º) than those using Scheimpflug camera data (0.23D±0.56@158º). Similar results were found for both types of astigmatism.

Conclusion

The PhysIOL and the Barrett toric calculators taking into account the posterior corneal astigmatism by mathematical models, yielded lower astigmatic prediction errors compared to a standard toric calculator based on anterior keratometry data only. When total corneal power measurements were used, prediction errors were lower with color-LED than with Scheimpflug based topography.

Prospective comparative study of tolerance to refractive errors after implantation of extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses with identical aspheric platform in Korean population

Background

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of extended depth of focus (EDOF) and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) that share identical aspheric platform and compare their visual acuity tolerance to postoperative refractive errors.

Methods

This non-randomized, prospective comparative study included 120 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of either Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 60 eyes of 30 patients) or Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (EDOF group: 60 eyes of 30 patients). Monocular and binocular visual outcomes, changes in refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and perception of photic phenomena (Halo & Glare Simulator; Eyeland Design Network, Vreden, Germany) were evaluated 3 months postoperatively. To compare the refractive tolerance, each group was divided into three subgroups according to the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent (SE).

Results

In the EDOF group, the mean 3-months postoperative monocular UDVA, intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were 0.03 ± 0.07, 0.09 ± 0.15, and 0.24 ± 0.16 logMAR, respectively. A total of 100, 96.55, and 68.97% of eyes in the EDOF group achieved binocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA values of 0.20 logMAR or better, respectively. In respect to refractive tolerance, the EDOF group showed higher SE values and statistically significantly better mean UDVA than the monofocal group in all subgroups, with UDVA of − 0.013 and 0.028 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.037), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within ±0.50 D, UDVA of 0.004 and 0.048 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.046), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was within − 1.00 D, and UDVA of 0.020 and 0.083 logMAR for EDOF and monofocal groups (p = 0.026), respectively, in the subgroup where SE was more than − 1.00 D. The mean patient satisfaction scores for spectacle-free distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities were 86.0, 85.0, and 66.0, respectively.

Conclusions

The EDOF IOL provided excellent postoperative visual outcomes in far and intermediate distances, with high patient satisfaction rate. Regarding the postoperative refractive tolerance to SE, the Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better tolerance to residual postoperative refractive error than the monofocal IOL with the same material and optical platform.

Distribution and related factors of corneal regularity and posterior corneal astigmatism in cataract patients

Purpose

To study the distribution of posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and its influencing factors in Chinese patients before cataract surgery.

Patients and methods

A retrospective study was conducted in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China. In all, this study enrolled 121 eligible eyes of 121 cataract patients. The astigmatism, aberrations and Q value of anterior, posterior and total cornea and anterior segment parameters (ACD, CCT, WTW, ATA) were measured by the Sirius System, and AL was measured by Lenstar LS 900. Cataract was diagnosed using slit-lamp examination.

Results

The mean age of patients was 67.44±10.66 years old. Mean PCA was 0.31±0.17 (range 0.05–1.09) D and 85.9% eyes had PCA values <0.5 D. With-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism predominated the anterior cornea astigmatism (ACA) (48.8%) and total corneal astigmatism (TCA) (61.2%), while against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism predominated posterior (86.0%). Significant positive correlation was found between the astigmatic power vector (APV) of ACA and PCA (Pearson correlation=0.318, P<0.001); TCA and PCA (Pearson correlation=0.204, P=0.025); keratometric astigmatism and PCA (Pearson correlation=0.356, P<0.001); this study also found a positive correlation between primary spherical aberration (Z4°) of the total cornea and PCA (Pearson correlation=0.266, P=0.003); primary spherical aberration (Z4°) of the corneal front surface and PCA (Pearson correlation=0.260, P=0.004); total corneal aberrations (Total cornea root mean square [RMS]) and PCA (Pearson correlation=0.327, P<0.001); total corneal higher-order aberrations (Total HOA RMS) (Pearson correlation=0.232, P=0.011); total corneal lower-order aberrations (Total LOA RMS) (Pearson correlation=0.250, P=0.006). A positive linear correlation between Q value of corneal front surface and PCA, either 6 mm pupil diameter (Pearson correlation=0.264, P=0.003) or 8 mm pupil diameter (Pearson correlation=0.184, P=0.043) was found in this study.

Conclusion

Corneal aberration, Q value (front surface specifically) was essential that we need to take into consideration when we conduct PCA and intraocular lens measurement in clinics.

Clinically relevant differences in the selection of toric intraocular lens power in normal eyes: preoperative measurement vs intraoperative aberrometry

Purpose: To assess the value of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) in determining toric intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with no previous ocular surgery.

Patients and methods: This was a retrospective data review at one US clinical site of eyes that underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation where standard preoperative and IA measurements were available. Calculated IOL sphere and cylinder powers and orientation were compared based on the measurement method and the postoperative refraction, using both actual and simulated (back-calculated) results. Comparisons were between the surgeon’s preoperative calculations, IA measurements, the actual IOL implanted and results from the Barrett toric calculator.

Results: There was no significant difference (p>0.7) in the number of eyes expected to have, or having, a spherical equivalent refraction within 0.50D of the target between Actual (92%), IA (93%) or Preoperative calculation results (86%). The percentage of eyes with expected residual refractive astigmatism ≤0.50D was significantly higher for the IA vs Preoperative calculations (75% vs 53%, p<0.01). There was no significant difference in expected results between the Actual, IA and Barrett toric calculations (p>0.65).

Conclusion: Modern IOL calculations for sphere produced results comparable to those achieved with IA. The value of IA in determining IOL cylinder power and orientation was more evident when comparing expected results between IA and a preoperative method based on measured total corneal astigmatism than when comparing to expected results from the Barrett toric calculator.

Correcting astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery: Toric IOLs and corneal relaxing incisions planned with an image-guidance system and intraoperative aberrometer versus manual planning and surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of the combination of an image-guided system and intraoperative aberrometer with the surgeon's standard of care in correcting astigmatism using toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) or corneal incisions.

SETTING

Single site in United States.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Contralateral eyes of patients having uncomplicated bilateral cataract surgery and astigmatism correction were randomly assigned to Group A or Group B. Group A received the surgeon's preferred standard of care. Group B had preoperative planning using an image-guidance system (VERION), intraoperative aberrometry (ORA System with VerifEye+), and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. The primary endpoint was the residual refractive astigmatism at 3 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight eyes were treated with toric IOLs and 40 eyes with corneal astigmatic incisions. On average, toric IOLs resulted in almost 0.25 diopter (D) less cylinder than corneal astigmatic incisions (P < .01), with no difference between groups (P = .41). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean spherical equivalent refraction by group (P = .51). At 3 months, the IOL in 4 eyes (11%) (2 in Group A and Group B each) was more than 10 degrees of absolute orientation from the intended orientation. The mean keratometry was 0.16 D higher with the image-guided system compared with optical biometry (Lenstar). The vector difference between the 2 measurements was 0.5 D or lower in all eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of an image-guided system and intraoperative aberrometer did not significantly improve outcomes compared with the surgeon's standard of care. Based on keratometry, there was good agreement in corneal astigmatism measurements between the image-guided system and the optical biometer.

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.

Consensus on the management of astigmatism in cataract surgery

This project was aimed at achieving consensus on the management of astigmatism during cataract surgery by ophthalmologists from Latin America using modified Delphi technique. Relevant peer-reviewed literature was identified, and 21 clinical research questions associated with the definition, classification, measurement, and treatment of astigmatism during cataract surgery were formulated. Twenty participants were divided into seven groups, and each group was assigned three questions to which they had to respond in written form, after thoroughly reviewing the literature. The assigned questions with corresponding responses by each group were discussed with other participants in round 4 – presentation of findings. The consensus was achieved if approval was obtained from at least 80% of participants. The present paper provides several agreements and recommendations for management of astigmatism during cataract surgery, which could potentially minimize the variability in practice patterns and help ophthalmologists adopt optimal practices for cataract patients with astigmatism and improve patient satisfaction.

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.

Patient outcomes following implantation with a trifocal toric IOL: twelve-month prospective multicentre study

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical outcomes with a premium diffractive-refractive trifocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) over a 12-month period.

METHODS

Multicentre prospective clinical trial including 227 eyes of 114 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of the AT LISA tri toric 939MP IOL (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). One patient was implanted unilaterally. Outcome measures were: visual acuity, manifest refraction, reading performance, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, patient satisfaction and subjective quality of vision. Alpins vector analysis was used to evaluate astigmatic changes.

RESULTS

12-month follow up results of binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity were ≤0.3 logMAR in 99.0%, 98.10% and 91.40% of eyes, respectively. 79.7% of eyes had a cylinder value of ±0.50 D at 12 months post-surgery. Contrast sensitivity was in the normal range at 6 months post-surgery. The defocus curve exhibited a smooth transition between far and near foci. Vector analysis showed a mean magnitude of error of -0.16 ± 0.48 D. Mean binocular distance-corrected reading visual acuity was 0.15 ± 0.13 logRAD at 6 months postoperatively. 93.3%, 89.4% and 84.6% of patients expressed satisfaction (good or very good) with distance, intermediate and near vision, respectively, 12 months after surgery. Most (≥95%) patients felt that visual disturbances, including halos, glare, focusing difficulties and depth perception, caused little or no disturbance.

CONCLUSIONS

The diffractive-refractive trifocal toric IOL, AT LISA tri toric 939MP, provides effective distance, intermediate and near visual acuity in eyes with corneal astigmatism. Patient satisfaction was high and 98.1% of patients expressed satisfaction with the IOL implanted.

Astigmatism evaluation prior to cataract surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate and summarize literature from the past 18 months reporting advancements and issues in astigmatism assessment prior to cataract surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

New and updated toric calculators and regression formulas offer the opportunity for more accurate lens selection for our patients. Concurrently, improvements in topographic evaluation of corneal keratometry have allowed for a decrease in unplanned residual corneal astigmatism. Measuring posterior corneal astigmatism is especially valuable in eyes with keratoconus when planning to implant toric intraocular lens (IOL) and now allows access to this patient population.

SUMMARY

Improved accuracy of astigmatism evaluation now occurs with point reflections on the corneal surface along with the latest generation toric lens formulas which integrated posterior corneal astigmatism, predicted lens position, and intended spherical power of the IOL. These improvements can allow for incorporation of toric lenses in keratoconus patients.

Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To assess the visual effects of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared to bifocal IOLs in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis of prospective comparative clinical trials (including 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohorts) was conducted. The defocus curves showed a better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (VA) for the trifocal group (MD −0.07; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.05; p < 0.00001), while the VA outcomes showed no significant difference in distance VA (MD −0.03; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.01; p = 0.13 for uncorrected distance VA and MD −0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.01; p = 0.78 for distance-corrected distance VA), near VA (MD −0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.04; p = 0.68 for uncorrected near VA and MD −0.01; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.04; p = 0.66 for distance-corrected near VA) or refraction between the two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded less conclusive results. Overall, a patient may achieve better intermediate VA with a trifocal IOL than with a bifocal IOL without any adverse effect on distance or near VA. The findings on contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality were heterogeneous, with no clear results favoring either option.