Visual performance, reading ability and patient satisfaction after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens

Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in 5,226 Patients With Presbyopia

PURPOSE

To assess visual and refractive outcomes and visual function after bilateral RayOne Trifocal toric and nontoric intraocular lens (IOL) (Rayner) implantation in patients with presbyopia.

METHODS

Charts of patients with presbyopia who underwent refractive lens exchange with bilateral implantation of the RayOne Trifocal IOL (toric and non-toric) were retrospectively reviewed. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated at 3 months. Patient satisfaction, spectacle independence, and visual disturbance profile were assessed by questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 5,226 patients were assigned to one of two groups: 1,010 patients had toric IOL implantation (toric group) and 4,216 patients received the non-toric model (non-toric group). Mean ± standard deviation visual acuity at 3 months for the toric group was binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR, monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR, binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm of 0.10 ± 0.09 logMAR, binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 40 cm of 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR, postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) of -0.21 ± 0.47 diopters (D), and cylinder of -0.34 ± 0.40 D. The non-toric group had binocular UDVA of 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR, monocular CDVA of 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR, binocular UNVA of 0.10 ± 0.08 logMAR, binocular UIVA of 0.13 ± 0.11 logMAR, SE of -0.08 ± 0.38 D, and cylinder of -0.28 ± 0.34 D. No statistically significant differences were found in achieving spectacle independence and there were high levels of satisfaction in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis with more than 5,000 patients, both the toric and non-toric RayOne Trifocal IOL models provided good visual performance at all distances, resulting in excellent levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(7):e468-e479.].

Defocus curves: Focusing on factors influencing assessment

ABSTRACT

Defocus curve assessment is used to emulate defocus over a range of distances and is a valuable tool that is used to differentiate the performance of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. However, defocus curves are limited by a lack of standardization, and multiple factors can impact their generation and interpretation. This review discusses key factors that influence the assessment of defocus curves, including pupil size, level of contrast, sphere versus cylinder defocus, viewing distance, monocular versus binocular assessment, use of Snellen versus logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution charts, and diopter range and step size. There are also different methods to analyze defocus curves, including the direct comparison method, range-of-focus analysis, and area under the curve analysis, which can impact result interpretation. A good understanding of these factors and standardization of the methodology are important to ensure optimal cross-study comparisons.

Long-term performance of a diffractive-refractive trifocal IOL with centralized diffractive rings: 5-year prospective clinical trial

PURPOSE

To report the 5-year visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes following implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) during cataract surgery.

SETTING

Csolnoky Ferenc University Hospital, Veszprém, Hungary.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal, single-center, interventional study.

METHODS

100 eyes of 50 patients underwent bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL during cataract surgery. Preoperative corrected distance (CDVA) and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), CDVA, uncorrected (UIVA) and corrected (CIVA) intermediate and uncorrected (UNVA) and corrected (CNVA) near visual acuity were collected. All subjects were seen at day 1, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months, and at year 5. Contrast sensitivity, slitlamp photography, and quality of vision questionnaire were performed at months 3, 6, 12, and 24 and at year 5. Of these 50 patients, 41 completed their 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

At year 5, 74 eyes of 37 patients were analyzed. The mean postoperative UDVA was 0.02 ± 0.10 (logMAR). The mean CDVA was -0.04 ± 0.07. The mean UIVA was 0.04 ± 0.09. The mean CIVA was 0.00 ± 0.08. The mean UNVA was 0.09 ± 0.09. The mean CNVA was 0.05 ± 0.07. Mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity values were in the upper third range of the age-matched normal values.

CONCLUSIONS

5-year prospective study data showed that bilateral implantation of a diffractive-refractive trifocal IOL with centralized diffractive rings provided good functional vision at all distances. There was high level of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction with minimal levels of dysphotopsia.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes, reading ability, and visual quality between the Symfony extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (IOL) and the trifocal AT LISA tri 839MP IOL.

SETTING

University Eye Clinic Maastricht, The Netherlands.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to bilateral Symfony IOL or AT LISA tri 839MP IOL implantation. The primary outcome measure was uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA measured at 66 cm). Secondary outcomes included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), reading ability, and comparison of defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, optical adverse effects, and quality of vision.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 60 eyes of 30 patients. The mean UIVA was -0.02 ± 0.03 (SD) vs 0.01 ± 0.03 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) in the Symfony and AT LISA tri 839MP groups, respectively (P = .047). The UDVA was 0.01 ± 0.12 and -0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR (P = .11) and the UNVA was 0.09 ± 0.05 and 0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR (P = .052) in the Symfony and AT LISA tri 839MP groups, respectively. Reading ability was similar in both groups at 40 cm and 66 cm (P = .87 and P = .14, respectively). Less than 10% of patients in both groups experienced disabling glare. Patients experienced disabling halos in the AT LISA tri 839 MP group compared to the Symfony group in 39% and 21% of cases, respectively (P = .12). The mean score for visual functioning was 88.0 ± 14.1 n the trifocal group and 88.2 ± 10.9 for the EDOF group (P = .96).

CONCLUSIONS

The UIVA was better in the Symfony group than in the AT LISA tri 839MP group. No significant differences were seen in the binocular UNVA and UDVA, contrast sensitivity, reading ability, incidence of photopic phenomena, and patient satisfaction.

Differences in Visual Working and Mobile Phone Usage Distance according to the Job Profile

PURPOSE

To analyze and characterize the pattern of visual working distance (WD) and mobile phone usage distance (MPD) in a large population, analyzing the differences in these parameters according to the job profile.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study consisting of a screening campaign evaluating the visual status of professionals from seven different environments. A total of 454 participants with a mean age of 41.5 years (range, 22-64 years) were revised. The screening campaign consisted of several rapid tests performed in a single session in the usual work environment of each participant, including measurement of WD, arm length, and MPD (VisionApp, VisionApp Solutions S.L.).

RESULTS

WD was significantly longer than MPD (82.5 ± 150.6 vs. 31.9 ± 6.3 cm, p < .001), whereas no significant differences were found between arm length (74.3 ± 4.8 cm) and WD (p = .493). WD was below 80 cm in 89.6% (407/454) of participants, whereas MPD was below 40 cm in 89.0% (404/454). No significant correlation was found between WD and MPD (r = 0.126, p = .117). Statistically significant differences were detected among job profile subgroups in WD (p < .001), with military personnel showing significantly longer WD than other professionals (p ≤ 0.018). Significant differences were also found between job profile subgroups in MPD (p = .006), with shorter MPDs for shoe factory professionals compared to sellers (p = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

WD and MPD vary significantly among individuals, but always showing a shorter MPD. WD varies significantly also according to the job profile, being necessary to consider this information when selecting the most optimal optical aid in each case, especially for the compensation of presbyopia.

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.

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.

Visual Function after Implantation of a Presbyopia-Correcting Trifocal Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate distance, intermediate, and near visual performance in patients implanted with a trifocal aspheric presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

Forty patients were bilaterally implanted with the AcrySofIQ PanOptix IOL after femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery. Binocular best corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (4 m), best distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) (40 and 30 cm), best corrected distance intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) (70, 60, and 50 cm), binocular distance contrast sensitivity under photopic conditions (85 cd/m2), and defocus curves were evaluated at 6-months.

RESULTS

Six months postoperatively, the mean binocular Snellen decimal CDVA and DCNVA were 0.94 ± 0.10 (ranging from 0.70 to 1.25) and 0.85 ± 0.13 (ranging from 0.63 to 1.00), respectively. At a distance, all patients showed a cumulative binocular distance-corrected visual acuity of 0.8 or better, and about 80% (n = 31) of the patients had a value of 1.0 (20/20). At near and intermediate distances, all patients showed a cumulative distance-corrected visual acuity of 0.5 (20/40) or better at 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 cm. Specifically, 50 cm showed the highest percentage of patients with larger values of visual acuity (60% [n = 26] with 20/20). Defocus curve showed a wide range of useful vision with two peaks of best visual acuity at distance and at 50 cm, and the binocular distance contrast sensitivity was within normal limits.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of the present study show that the visual performance obtained with bilateral implantation of the trifocal aspheric AcrySofIQ PanOptix IOL is good at far, intermediate, and near distances.

AcrySof IQ PanOptix Intraocular Lens Versus Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens and Trifocal Intraocular Lens: A Clinical Overview

AcrySof IQ PanOptix Model TFNT00 (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX) is a 1-piece aspheric hydrophobic presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) launched in 2015. Unlike traditional trifocal IOLs that usually have an intermediate focal point of 80 cm, the PanOptix IOL is designed to have an intermediate focal point of 60 cm (arms-length), a more natural and comfortable working distance to perform functional tasks on computers, laptops, mobiles, among others. The non-apodized PanOptix IOL uses the ENhanced LIGHT ENergy (ENLIGHTEN; Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX) optical technology that provides high (88%) utilization of light energy, low dependence on pupil size in all lighting conditions, and a more comfortable near-to-intermediate range of vision than traditional trifocal IOLs. This review provides an overview of the clinical performance of the PanOptix IOL and discusses it in the context of other commercially available trifocal IOLs, FineVision Micro F (PhysIOL, Liege, Belgium), the AT LISA tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and the extended depth of focus IOL, TECNIS Symfony (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA). A literature search was performed in the PubMed database to identify studies that have assessed the visual and other clinical outcomes with the PanOptix IOL. In total, 12 studies were included in this review article. Overall, the clinical evidence suggests that in general good visual outcomes, along with a high degree of spectacle independence, are achieved in patients implanted with the PanOptix, FineVision, AT LISA and Symfony IOLs. However, every MIOL has its benefits and limitations, which along with patient's needs and clinical conditions are important factors to consider while selecting an IOL to achieve best possible post-operative outcomes.

Correction of presbyopia: An integrated update for the practical surgeon

Presbyopia results from loss or insufficiency of the eye's accommodative ability, and clinically manifests as the inability to focus near objects on the retina. It is one of the most common causes of visual impairment worldwide especially in adults of productive or working age. Various means of compensating for the loss of accommodative ability have been devised from optical tools such as spectacles and contact lenses, to topical medications and to surgical procedures. A comprehensive search on journal articles about topical and surgical correction of presbyopia was undertaken. The various techniques for presbyopia correction, as enumerated in these articles, are discussed in this paper with the addition of our personal experience and perspective on the future of these techniques.