Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Definitions

Presbyopia is often the first sign of ageing experienced by humans. Standardising terminology and adopting it across the BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia reports, improves consistency in the communication of the evidence-based understanding of this universal physiological process. Presbyopia can be functionally and psychologically debilitating, especially for those with poor access to eyecare. Presbyopia was defined as occurring when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point that, when optimally corrected for far vision, the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements. Accommodation is the change in optical power of the eye due to a change in crystalline lens shape and position, whereas pseudo-accommodation is the attainment of functional near vision in an emmetropic or far-corrected eye without changing the refractive power of the eye. Other definitions specific to vision and lenses for presbyopia were also defined. It is recommended that these definitions be consistently adopted in order to standardise future research, clinical evaluations and education.

Comparison of Patients With Emmetropia and Presbyopia and Different Accommodation Who Undergo Unilateral or Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal IOL

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes and satisfaction in patients with emmetropia, presbyopia, and greater or lesser residual accommodation who undergo unilateral or bilateral implantation of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

A multicenter, multisurgeon study was performed to evaluate outcomes in patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who underwent refractive lens exchange followed by implantation of a FineVision trifocal IOL (PhysIOL). The inclusion criteria were as follows: emmetropia, sphere -0.25 to +0.50 diopters (D), cylinder less than 0.75 D, and manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) of -0.25 to +0.25 D. All patients also had to have an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of Snellen 0.9 or better in each eye. The sample was divided into different clusters based on two variables: eyes operated on (monocular or binocular) and age either younger than 55 years or 55 years or older. Thus, four possible groups were created. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 690 eyes from 431 patients were evaluated. There was no difference in postoperative uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity between the groups. Binocular uncorrected near vision (UNVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes regardless of age (median [interquartile range]: 0.00 [0.00; 0.10] vs 0.10 [0.00; 0.10] logMAR; P < .001). Binocular uncorrected intermediate vision (UIVA) was better in patients who underwent surgery on both eyes aged younger than 55 years than in those who underwent surgery in one eye aged 55 years or older (median [interquartile range]: 0.18 [0.10; 0.18] vs 0.30 [0.18; 0.30] logMAR; P < .001). The efficacy and safety indexes were 0.98 ± 0.09 and 1.01 ± 0.06, respectively. A total of 93.3% of eyes were within the 0.50 D range in postoperative MRSE. Visual dysphotopsia was worse in patients with both eyes operated on, although the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that after refractive lens exchange, patients with emmetropia and presbyopia who received a trifocal IOL in one or both eyes achieved good UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA. Regarding near binocular visual acuity, results were better for patients who underwent surgery on both eyes than for those who underwent surgery on one eye. Regarding binocular intermediate visual acuity, patients aged younger than 55 years with both lenses replaced had better results than those 55 years or older with only one lens replaced. However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA or patient satisfaction. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(12):817-824.].

Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange with a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Patients with Presbyopia

INTRODUCTION

Refractive lens exchange (RLE) patients represent a unique population with a different baseline and set of expectations compared to their cataract counterparts. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction following RLE with bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) were assessed in a cohort of patients with presbyopia and without cataract.

METHODS

Charts of patients with presbyopia who underwent femtosecond laser-assisted RLE with bilateral implantation of the PanOptix trifocal IOL (toric and non-toric) at a single-surgeon, private practice center from September 2019 to August 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Eyes with prior keratorefractive surgery, amblyopia, or underlying pathology were excluded. Primary endpoints included corrected and uncorrected visual acuity at distance (CDVA and UDVA), intermediate (DCIVA and UIVA), and near (DCNVA and UNVA) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included residual refractive error, patient-reported satisfaction, spectacle independence, and visual disturbance profile as assessed by a validated questionnaire at 6 months.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight eyes of 39 patients (mean age 56 ± 6 years; 79% female) were included. Most eyes were hyperopic (mean SE 2.35 ± 1.81). Postoperatively, 100% and 92% of eyes were within ± 1.00 D and ± 0.50 D of emmetropia, respectively. One hundred percent, 97%, and 97% of patients achieved UDVA, UNVA, and UIVA of logMAR 0.1 or better. Starbursts were the most frequent (67%) and bothersome (41%) visual disturbance cited, but nearly half (41%) of patients rated them as absent or "not bothersome at all." Overall, 77% of patients reported achieving complete spectacle independence with 87% and 90% of patients stating they were satisfied with their vision and would recommend the same procedure to others, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RLE with bilateral implantation of the PanOptix IOL is a safe and effective procedure with good patient satisfaction. Because of their relatively clear native lenses and visually demanding needs compared to their cataract counterparts, surgeons should take extra precautions to counsel RLE patients on the limitations of trifocal technology.

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.

The effects of premium intraocular lenses on presbyopia treatments

Background

Presbyopia has become a global disease affecting the world's aging population. Among various treatments, cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have become the most popular and common methods of presbyopia correction. During the twentieth century, IOLs have underwent significant innovation and advancements to meet the patients' high demands for functional vision at all distances.

Main Text

To meet the increasing needs for excellent near and intermediate vision for daily activities, some premium IOLs with more than one focus have been developed, for example, the refractive MfIOLs, diffractive MfIOLs, extended depth of field (EDOF) IOLs, and accommodating IOLs (AIOLs) were introduced to meet this need. In addition, the add-on MfIOLs have been explored as promising supplementary IOLs for pseudophakic presbyopia. When selecting the MfIOLs, the IOLs' features, patients' characteristics, preoperative eye conditions, and treatment expectations should be considered.

Conclusions

In this review, we focus on the multifocal IOLs (MfIOLs) commonly used for presbyopia correction and systematically summarized their optical designs and clinical outcomes. More evidence-based studies are required to provide guidelines for MfIOL selection, provide maximum visual benefits, and develop personalized visual solutions in the future.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Binocular visual function after unilateral versus bilateral implantation of segmented refractive multifocal intraocular lenses: a pilot study

PURPOSE

To evaluate binocular visual function after unilateral and bilateral implantation of segmented refractive multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs).

METHODS

This prospective comparative pilot study included patients who underwent SBL-3 (Lenstec; + 3.00 D) implantation at Peking University Third Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups (monocular or binocular surgery). Thirty-two patients with emmetropic presbyopic contralateral eyes and 49 patients with bilateral SBL-3 implantation within a week between eyes were included in the unilateral SBL-3 and bilateral groups, respectively. At 3-month follow-up, the main outcomes were binocular uncorrected distant, intermediate, and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA). Secondary outcomes included binocular best-corrected visual acuity at all distances, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, photic phenomena, spectacle independence, patient satisfaction, and National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) score. The essential perceptual phenomena constituting binocular vision, simultaneous perception, fusion, and stereopsis were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Both groups showed similar binocular UDVA and UIVA, but UNVA was significantly better in the bilateral group (0.07 ± 0.07 versus 0.12 ± 0.07, P = 0.008). Better binocular defocus curve at intermediate to near focal points, higher percentage of spectacle independence at near distance, and NEI-VFQ-25 near activity scores were observed in the bilateral group. No significant differences in contrast sensitivity, photic phenomena, overall satisfaction, other NEI-VFQ-25 subscales, fusional amplitude, and stereoacuity were found between groups.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral implantation of segmented refractive MIOL provided desirable distant visual acuity and high patient satisfaction, but inferior intermediate and near visual outcomes compared with bilateral implantation.

Visual Performance Following Bilateral Implantation of Refractive Rotationally Asymmetric Bifocal Intraocular Lens (LS-313 MF30) or Apodized Diffractive Bifocal Intraocular Lens (ReSTOR SN6AD1)

Purpose

This study compared the clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (LS-313 MF30) and apodized diffractive bifocal IOL (ReSTOR SN6AD1).

Methods

This was a prospective, non-randomized, controlled study, where patients diagnosed with age-related cataracts were selected for phacoemulsification combined with bilateral IOL implantation. Based on the type of IOL voluntarily implanted, the patients were divided into two groups, ie, refractive and diffractive groups. In total, 30 cases (60 eyes) were in a refractive group, while 30 cases (60 eyes) were in diffractive group. Three months after surgery, we examined the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), defocus curve, objective visual quality, and subjective questionnaire.

Results

Three months after surgery, the UIVA of the refractive group (0.18 ± 0.08) logMAR was better than that of the diffractive group (0.29 ± 0.16) logMAR (P < 0.05). No significant difference in UDVA and UNVA was noted between the two groups. For a 4mm pupil diameter, the intraocular and total eye aberration, higher-order aberration (HOA), coma, spherical aberration, and trefoil in the refractive group were significantly higher than those in diffractive group (P < 0.05). The intraocular modulation transfer function (MTF), intraocular strehl ratio (SR), total eye MTF, and total eye SR in the refractive group were lower than those in diffractive group (P < 0.05). No significant difference in glare incidence, spectacle independence rate, and patient satisfaction was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The halos incidence in the refractive group was lower than the diffractive group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both bifocal IOLs obtained satisfactory UDVA and UNVA, with higher patient satisfaction. Unlike the apodized diffractive bifocal IOL, the refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL yielded slightly better UIVA, lower halos incidence, whereas the apodized diffractive bifocal IOL showed a better objective visual quality.

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.

Visual Performance and Quality of Life after Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery with Trifocal IOLs Implantation

Purpose: To assess visual performance and quality of life after implantation of diffractive trifocal IOLs with enhanced depth of focus (Acriva Reviol Tri-ED) compared to monofocal IOLs. Setting: Ophthalmology Clinic, Department of Medicine and Science of Ageing, University “G. d’Annunzio” Chieti-Pescara, Italy. Design: Prospective clinical study. Methods: This study comprised 36 eyes of 18 patients with senile cataract candidates for phacoemulsification and implantation of the Acriva Reviol Tri-ED (Group 1–18 eyes) and the AcrySof IQ Monofocal IOL SN60WF (Group 2–18 eyes). The main outcome measures, over a 6-month follow-up period, were uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at different distances (40, 60 cm and 4 m), defocus curve, contrast sensitivity and wavefront error. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by means of the NEI-RQL-42 questionnaire. Results: At 180 days postoperatively, the difference of the UCDVA and CDVA between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.888 and p = 0.843, respectively). The difference between the groups was statistically significant for UCIVA (p = 0.019) and UCNVA (p = 0.036). The mean values of contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions were not significantly different between the groups. The RMS of spherical aberration was significantly lower in Group 1 compared to Group 2. The NEI-RQL-42 questionnaire showed statistically significant differences between the groups for the dependence on correction (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The diffractive trifocal IOL with enhanced depth of focus Acriva Reviol Tri-ED was effective in improving functional capacity for intermediate and near vision compared to monofocal IOLs and provided a good quality of vision due to a significant reduction in spherical aberration.

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.

Visual performance of four types of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses and a review of articles

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of a variety of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) in patients diagnosed with presbyopia or cataracts.

METHODS

This clinical trial study included 141 patients (282 eyes) with different MIOLs implantation. The Symfony (60 eyes), the ReSTOR (100 eyes), the AT LISAtri (60 eyes), and the PanOptix (62 eyes) intraocular lenses were evaluated in this prospective interventional study. The near, intermediate, and distant visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, and defocus curve were measured as valid criteria. To statistically analyze the results, we used the Statistical Package for Social Science software, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank t, the one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey's post-hoc test in our analysis. Moreover, we conducted a detailed literature search on the PubMed database in English about MIOLs, in total 59 studies were included in this review article.

RESULTS

The four approaches did not show any significant difference in the best-corrected distance visual acuity (P>0.05). The defocus curves at the contrast of 100% showed that trifocal IOLs had better intermediate performance than the bifocal IOL (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between AT LISAtri and PanOptix lenses for visual acuity at all distances. The eyes with PanOptix, Symfony, and AT LISAtri IOL showed better contrast sensitivity than those ReSTOR at spatial frequencies of 1, 3, and 6 cpd in photopic and mesopic conditions (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

All four groups of the multifocal lenses were satisfying in terms of distance and near vision. Also, the group of trifocal lenses led to satisfactory outcomes in intermediate vision, without degradation in quality of vision.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Emmetropic Presbyopic Patients

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes and patient satisfaction between unilateral and bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in emmetropic patients with presbyopia.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, multisurgeon study of emmetropic presbyopes who underwent refractive lens exchange (RLE) followed by an implantation of FineVision IOL (PhysIOL). Inclusion criteria were emmetropic eyes, with a sphere between -0.25 and +0.50 diopters (D), cylinder of less than 0.75 D and spherical equivalent (SE) between -0.25 and +0.25 D. In addition, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) had to be Snellen >0.9 in each eye. A total of 171 eyes of 122 patients were evaluated. This sample was divided into 2 groups depending on whether they have been operated monocularly or binocularly. Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were evaluated.

RESULTS

UDVA and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) remained almost unchanged after monocular and binocular surgery. Binocular uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA) were better in those operated binocularly (0.3±0.12 vs 0.22±0.06, P < .063, and 0.09±0.08 vs 0.04±0.05, P < .027, respectively). Predictability and efficacy were higher in the binocular group, whereas safety was better in the monocular group. Visual dysphotopsia was worse and spectacle independence for all distances was higher in binocular group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research shows that RLE with binocular implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL in presbyopic emmetropic patients is more successful in UNVA than monocular implantation. However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA, UIVA, and patient satisfaction.

Predictors of Photic Phenomena with a Trifocal IOL

Aim

To assess predictive factors associated with glares and halos in patients undergoing cataract surgery with PanOptix trifocal IOL implantation.

Methods

Single-center retrospective study. One hundred and forty eyes from 70 patients with cataract were bilaterally implanted with a trifocal PanOptix aspherical diffractive lens between 2017 and 2019 and followed-up for six months. All patients were evaluated for refraction, corneal topography, and aberrometry pre- and post-operatively. Patients were assessed at 1 day, 6 days, 1 and 6 months after surgery. One and six months post-operatively patients were asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire that included photic phenomena assessment. Main outcome measures were photic phenomena at 1 and 6 months of follow-up. Predictors of photic phenomena at 1 and 6 months were also analyzed.

Results

A higher corneal coma was associated with more mild halos at 6 months with no association regarding other degrees of severity. The lower the age the higher the glare or halos, the higher the lens thickness and the lower the anterior chamber depth or chord µ the less halos at 1 month. A significant proportion of patients had more none/mild compared to moderate/severe glare and halos both at 1 and 6 months post-operatively. Baseline BCVA was the only predictor of halos at 1 month and glare and halos at 6 months post-surgery.

Conclusion

On multivariate regression analyses, the only predictor of photic phenomena was baseline visual acuity, suggesting that patients that have a better visual acuity before surgery are more demanding regarding visual outcomes after surgery.

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.

Implantation of a diffractive-refractive trifocal intraocular lens with centralized diffractive rings: Two-year results

PURPOSE

To compare the optical performance and quality of life after implantation of a new progressively apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and report the visual and patient-reported outcomes and contrast sensitivity.

SETTING

Csolnoky Ferenc Hospital, Veszprem, Hungary.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients had bilateral implantation of the trifocal IOL during cataract surgery. The preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), CDVA, uncorrected (UIVA) and corrected (CIVA) intermediate visual acuities, and uncorrected (UNVA) and corrected (CNVA) near visual acuities (all logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) were collected. Contrast sensitivity, slitlamp photographs for evaluation of posterior capsule opacification, and a quality-of-vision questionnaire were assessed.

RESULTS

The study comprised 100 eyes (50 patients). The mean postoperative UDVA was 0.01 at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The mean CDVA was -0.02 ± 0.03 (SD) at 6 months, -0.04 ± 0.05 at 1 year, and 0.06 ± 0.05 at 2 years. The mean UIVA was 0.05 ± 0.11, 0.04 ± 0.09, and 0.06 ± 0.11, respectively. The mean CIVA was -0.01 ± 0.07, -0.02 ± 0.06, and -0.01 ± 0.07, respectively. The mean UNVA was 0.08 ± 0.08, 0.07 ± 0.08, and 0.10 ± 0.09, respectively. The mean CNVA was 0.03 ± 0.06 at 3 months, 0.04 ± 0.05 at 1 year, and 0.05 ± 0.07 at 2 years. The mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity values were within the upper normal range for age-matched values.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation of a new trifocal IOL with centralized diffractive rings provided good functional vision at all distances. The levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction were high with minimal dysphotopsia symtoms.

Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes between hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lenses sharing the same optical design

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes between two trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs): the new FineVision POD F GF trifocal IOL made of hydrophobic acrylic glistening-free material, and the FineVision POD F IOL made of hydrophilic acrylic material with 26% water uptake in patients undergoing routine cataract surgery using standard phacoemulsification.

SETTING

Semmelweis University, Department of Ophthalmology, Budapest, Hungary.

DESIGN

Prospective controlled randomized single-center single-surgeon study.

METHODS

Each patient had the hydrophilic POD F IOL implanted in one eye and the hydrophobic POD F GF IOL in the contralateral eye, according to a randomization table. Clinical outcomes included distance (4 m), intermediate (70 cm), and near (35 cm) visual acuities, contrast sensitivity measured under photopic and mesopic conditions, and defocus curves under photopic conditions. The follow-up was 6 months.

RESULTS

The study comprised 25 patients. Under photopic conditions, there was no statistically significant difference between POD F GF and POD F IOLs for uncorrected distance (UDVA) (P = .607), uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) (P = .491), and uncorrected near (UNVA) (P = .414) visual acuities. Under mesopic conditions, there was no statistically significant differences between the 2 IOLs for UDVA (P = 1.00), UIVA (P = .149), and UNVA (P = .551). No statistically significant differences in contrast sensitivity were found between the groups under photopic (P = .4347) and mesopic (P = .425) conditions. No safety issues were reported.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated equally good visual and refractive outcomes for the POD F GF IOL and the POD F IOL, giving the surgeon the option to choose the preferred material for the individual patient without compromising clinical outcomes.

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.

Comparison of visual outcomes after implantation of AtLisa tri 839 MP and Symfony intraocular lenses

Purpose

To compare visual outcomes after implantation of AtLisa tri 839 MP and Symfony intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

All subjects underwent sequential bilateral cataract extraction with AtLisa tri 839 MP or Symfony IOL implantation. The design is prospective case series. Each group consists of 20 patients (40 eyes). At 1 year postoperatively, the following parameters were analysed: binocular uncorrected visual acuity (log MAR): for distance (UDVA) at 4 m, for intermediate distances (UIVA) at 60, 70, 80 cm and for near (UNVA) at 40 cm, defocus curve, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivities (CSs), spectacle independence, visual function test questionnaire modified VFQ-25), photopic phenomena and postoperative complications.

Results

In the AtLisa tri 839 MP group, the mean binocular UNVA and UIVA were significantly better than in the Symfony group (UNVA: − 0.01 ± 0.04 vs. 0.21 ± 0.15; p = 0.000; 60 cm UIVA: − 0.01 ± 0.04 vs. 0.09 ± 0.09, p = 0.001; 70 cm UIVA − 0.05 ± 0.06 vs. 0.11 ± 0.08, p = 0.002; 80 cm UIVA − 0.01 ± 0.06 vs. 0.15 ± 0.08, p = 0.019). There were no significant between-group differences in the mean binocular UDVA and CS, with one exception: the mean binocular distance CS (18 cpd) under mesopic conditions was significantly better in the Symfony group than in the AtLisa tri 839 MP group (1.39 ± 0.22 vs. 1.17 ± 0.27; p = 0.015). The defocus curve analysis revealed significant between-group differences at vergences of 2.0 to − 4.0 D (p < 0.05), except for 2.0, 1.0, 0 and − 1.5. All subjects in AtLisa tri 839 MP group and 18 subjects (90%) in Symfony group were spectacle independent. Patients from both groups highly rated their overall vision quality in the VFQ-25 (1.67 ± 0.47 vs. 1.85 ± 0.5 in the Symfony and AtLisa tri 839 MP group, respectively, p = NS). The scores for daytime driving (1.00 ± 0.00 vs. 1.21 ± 0.36; p = 0.002), night driving (1.57 ± 0.55 vs. 2.13 ± 1.15; p = 0.027) and difficult situation driving (1.14 ± 0.31 vs. 1.53 ± 0.56; p = 0.049) were significantly better in the AtLisa tri 839 MP group than in the Symfony group. The incidence and perception level of halo and glare were significantly reduced (p = 0.00) in the Symfony group as compared to the AtLisa tri 839 MP group. The postoperative course was uneventful in all subjects.

Conclusions

Visual outcomes achieved with both IOLs are comparable. In both groups, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence. Whereas the AtLisa tri 839 MP IOL implantation was associated with slightly better intermediate distance VA and significantly better near VA, photic phenomena were less perceived by patients with Symfony IOLs.

Patients satisfaction and clinical outcomes of binocular implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes following bilateral implantation of PanOptix intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients scheduled to undergo cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery between October 2017 and June 2018 at two centers. Manifest refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, 60 cm) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA, 40 cm), defocus curves, presence of dysphotopsia, need for spectacles, presence of posterior capsule opacification and visual function were evaluated at 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The IOL was implanted in 138 eyes of 69 patients. The mean binocular UDVA was 0.02 ± 0.05 logMAR, UIVA 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR and UNVA 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR. Defocus curve showed two peaks at 0.00 D and - 1.50 D. Complete spectacle independence was reported in 94.2% of the patients. The mean VF-14 test result was 97.7 ± 2.2 (93.2-100). Only one patient (1.4%) reported seeing bothersome halos. The presence of posterior capsule opacification was noted in seven eyes (10%), whereas Nd:Yag capsulotomy was required only in one eye.

CONCLUSIONS

This trifocal IOL provided excellent visual outcomes at all distances with high spectacle independence and patient's satisfaction.

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.

Prospective Comparison of Clinical Performance and Subjective Outcomes Between Two Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses in Bilateral Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of two non-toric diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

In a prospective, comparative case series, patients were randomly allocated to receive bilateral implantation of either the preloaded RayOne Trifocal (Rayner, Worthing, UK) or the FineVision POD F (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). At the 3-month follow-up, the main outcomes were monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate at 80 cm (UIVA, DCIVA), and near at 40 cm (UNVA, DCNVA) visual acuities, refractive outcomes, and defocus curves. Patients' satisfaction in terms of visual disturbance was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Each group comprised 30 eyes (15 patients). The mean monocular UDVA was 0.03 ± 0.11 (RayOne Trifocal) and 0.04 ± 0.08 (FineVision POD F) logMAR (P = .605); DCIVA was 0.05 ± 0.13 and 0.05 ± 0.10 logMAR, respectively (P > .999); and DCNVA was 0.02 ± 0.12 and 0.03 ± 0.11 logMAR (P = .742). A better manifest spherical equivalent was found in the RayOne Trifocal than in the FineVision POD F group (P = .035) and depth perception issues were less severe with the RayOne Trifocal IOL (P = .042). There was no significant difference in other photic phenomena between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both IOLs provided good visual outcomes at all distances with no differences between the groups. Refractive accuracy was better for the RayOne Trifocal IOL. The results indicated that the new trifocal IOL may represent a safe and effective option for presbyopic patients. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(7):418-425.].

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.

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.

Unilateral Refractive Lens Exchange with a Multifocal Intraocular Lens in Emmetropic Presbyopic Patients

Purpose: To evaluate the visual outcome and patient satisfaction after a unilateral multifocal IOL implantation in the non-dominant eye of emmetropic patients with presbyopia. Methods: An interventional case series of consecutive patients who underwent unilateral phacoemulsification with femto-laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and refractive lens exchange (RLE), followed by an implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL (FineVision Micro F), was performed in the non-dominant eyes of emmetropic patients with presbyopia. After 6 months of follow-up, the main outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). Secondary outcomes included spherical equivalent (SE), refraction, contrast sensitivity, patient questionnaire and presence of visual side effects. Results: A total of 26 eyes of 26 patients, with an average age of 53.8 ± 4.1 years, were included in this study. Preoperative mean UDVA was 0.13 ± 0.04 logMAR (Snellen 20/27), UIVA was 0.46 ± 0.12 logMAR (Snellen 20/58), and UNVA was 0.66 ± 0.17 logMAR (Snellen 20/91), in comparison to postoperative mean UDVA of 0.18 ± 0.32 logMAR (Snellen 20/30) (p = 0.32), UIVA of 0.17 ± 0.21 logMAR (Snellen 20/30) (p < 0.005), and UNVA of 0.02 ± 0.10 logMAR (Snellen 20/21) (p < 0.005). Monocular UNVA of 20/25 or better in the operated eye was achieved in 23 (88%) patients. Twenty-four (96%) patients said they would recommend this procedure to family and friends. There were no intraoperative complications and no IOL exchange was required. Conclusions: A unilateral RLE of the non-dominant eye with FLACS and a trifocal diffractive IOL (FineVision Micro F) implantation in emmetropic, presbyopic patients is provides satisfactory distance, intermediate, and near visual outcomes with no complications reported in this preliminary case series.

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.

A Comparative Evaluation of a New Generation of Diffractive Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the performance of two diffractive trifocal and one extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

In this 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, comparative study, patients undergoing routine cataract surgery were randomized to receive one of two trifocal IOLs (AcrySof IQ PanOptix; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, or FineVision Micro F; PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or an EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL). There were 20 patients in each group. The primary outcome was binocular and monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuity. The secondary outcomes were quality of vision and aberrometry.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between groups in either monocular (P = .717) or binocular (P = .837) UDVA. Monocular and binocular UNVA were statistically and significantly better for both trifocal lenses than for the EDOF IOL (P = .002). The percentage of patients with J2 UNVA was 52.5% monocularly and 70% binocularly for the TECNIS Symfony IOL, 81.5% monocularly and 100% binocularly for the AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL, and 82.5% monocularly and 95% binocularly for the FineVision Micro F IOL. There was no significant difference in binocular UIVA between groups; VA was better than 0.6 in 55%, 53%, and 35% of patients with the TECNIS Symfony, AcrySof IQ Pan-Optix, and FineVision Micro F IOLs, respectively. Overall, 90% patients achieved spectacle independence. There were no differences in visual symptoms and aberrometry among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All three IOLs provided good visual acuity at all distances, a high percentage of spectacle independence, and little or no impact of visual symptoms on the patients' daily functioning. Near vision was statistically better for both trifocal IOLs compared to the EDOF IOL. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):507-514.].

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.

Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of a new trifocal diffractive intraocular lens

Purpose

To assess the visual outcomes, patient satisfaction and spectacle independence following implantation of new diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses.

Setting

2 centers (university-based practice and a private practice set up).

Patients and methods

Prospective nonrandomized study in which 74 AT LISA TRI 839MP and 8 AT LISA TORIC TRI 939MP IOLs implanted bilaterally in 41 patients following either cataract extraction or refractive lensectomy, follow-up was done at 1st, 2nd and 3rd months to assess the visual and refractive outcomes. Also, a questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction, spectacle independence and photic phenomena after the surgery.

Results

Mean uncorrected monocular distance decimal visual acuity (UDVA) was preoperatively 0.35. The averages of uncorrected monocular distance/intermediate/near (UDVA/UIVA/UNVA) postoperatively were 0.90/0.87/0.91 at 3 months. 87.5% patients had SE within ±0.50 by the 3rd month. Nearly all the patients were satisfied with the surgical outcome and the reported photic phenomena by some patients were non-disturbing with noticeable high level of patient’s satisfaction by the third month.

Conclusion

Diffractive trifocal IOLs can provide with satisfactory visual and refractive results along with positive impact on the performance of vision-related daily activities with minimal level of non-disturbing photic phenomena to patients.

Advances and challenges of intraocular lens design [Invited]

Phacoemulsification technique with intraocular lens implantation has been a common treatment for cataract patients. With rising demand among the public, new technologies for lens design have emerged to minimize intraocular aberrations, improving visual quality to the largest extent. This paper systematically reviews the development of materials applied in lens manufacturing, the different categories of intraocular lenses, and respective design principles. The advantages and potential drawbacks of intraocular lenses are illustrated in the paper, and prospective research to improve the design are presented in the end.

Clinical outcomes following trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation for age-related cataract in China

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate visual, refractive and patient satisfaction outcomes following implantation of a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL).

Patients and methods

This prospective, consecutive study included patients undergoing lens phacoemulsification of cataract and implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP). Visual outcomes, including near, intermediate and distance visual acuity (VA), refractive error, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve and patient satisfaction were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively.

Results

Thirty IOLs were implanted in 26 patients. Distance VA improved significantly from 0.70±0.45 to 0.08±0.11 logMAR (p<0.0001) 1 week postoperatively, and to 0.07±0.13 logMAR (p<0.0001) at 1 month and 0.05±0.10 logMAR (p<0.0001) at 3 months. Uncorrected near and intermediate VA, as well as corrected near, intermediate and distance VA, were stable and maintained during the follow-up period. Preoperative anterior chamber depth demonstrated an association with effective adjustment of postoperative spherical equivalent using a regression formula (p=0.007). No significant differences were observed for VA at defocus curves of 0 to −3 D. Contrast sensitivity at each spatial frequency improved significantly at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months under photopic and photopic with glare conditions. Under mesopic and mesopic with glare conditions, significant differences were observed postoperatively at low and medium spatial frequencies. Patients reported a high level of satisfaction and an absence of glare or halo 3 months postoperatively.

Conclusion

In this study, the trifocal diffractive IOL provided excellent visual performance at all distances and improved contrast sensitivity under different conditions, resulting in high levels of patient satisfaction and spectacle independence in Chinese patients.

Visual Outcomes After Implantation of a Segmental Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens Following Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual outcomes, with particular attention to intermediate visual acuity (VA), of a segmental refractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with optimized depth of focus (DoF).

DESIGN

Prospective, nonrandomized, noncomparative case series.

METHODS

Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt/Germany. Patient or Study Population: Fifty eyes (25 patients) were included. Inclusion criteria were bilateral cataract, age > 45 years, corneal astigmatism ≤ 0.75 diopter (D) postoperatively, pupil size 3-6 mm (mesopic), and center shift < 1 mm (Pentacam). Exclusion criteria were ocular surgeries, amblyopia, or potential postoperative distance-corrected VA (DCVA) > 0.3 logMAR. Intervention or Observation: Uncorrected (UCVA) and DCVA in 4 m, 80 cm, 40 cm; contrast sensitivity (CS); reading skills; defocus curve; and questionnaire on optical quality (OQ) and spectacle independence were assessed after 3 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

UCVA and DCVA in 4 m, 80 cm, 40 cm; defocus curve.

RESULTS

UCVA was 0.05 ± 0.122 logMAR at 4 m, 0.18 ± 0.164 logMAR at 80 cm, and 0.16 ± 0.140 logMAR at 40 cm. Defocus curve testing showed, respectively, a flat monocular and binocular VA range from 0.00 to -2.00 D (-0.03 to 0.11 logMAR, -0.05 to 0.05 logMAR). Median CS under photopic and mesopic conditions without and with glare was 1.81 logCS, 1.65 logCS, 1.52 logCS, and 1.14 logCS, respectively. Reading speed at 40 cm showed a reading acuity of 0.100 logRAD with 94 words/minute.

CONCLUSION

This segmental multifocal IOL provides good VA at all distances (<0.20 logMAR), particularly providing good intermediate visual acuity and DoF. It showed good reading skills, OQ, and CS and high spectacle independence.

Comparison of the Visual Performance After Implantation of Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses Having an Identical Platform

PURPOSE

To compare the visual performance after bilateral implantation of a diffractive bifocal or trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) from the same manufacturer using the same IOL platform.

METHODS

This prospective, non-randomized, controlled study involved patients who had cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of bifocal or trifocal IOLs. The near, intermediate, and distance visual acuities, defocus curve, optical quality including modulation transfer functions and higher-order aberrations, National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-14, patient satisfaction, spectacle independence, and perception of visual disturbances were assessed in all patients.

RESULTS

Fifty eyes (25 patients) were implanted with a diffractive trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and 60 eyes (30 patients) with a diffractive bifocal IOL (AT LISA 809M; Carl Zeiss Meditec). The follow-up was 3 months. No statistically significant difference was found in distance or near visual acuity between the two groups (P ≥ .05). Uncorrected, corrected, and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuities were significantly better in the trifocal IOL group (P < .01). In the binocular defocus curve, the visual acuity was also significantly better for defocus of -1.00 to -2.00 diopters in eyes with trifocal IOL implantation (P < .01). Similar halos and glare were present in the two groups. The levels of overall satisfaction were similarly high between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Diffractive trifocal IOLs can provide significantly better intermediate vision and equivalent distance and near visual performance compared to bifocal IOLs and do not induce extra qualitative vision disturbances. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(4):273-280.].

Visual outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the extended range of vision intraocular lens: A prospective study

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to analyze the objective and subjective visual outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the extended range of vision intraocular lens (EROV IOL), the Tecnis Symfony.

Methods:

This was a prospective interventional case series conducted at a tertiary eye care hospital in South India. The study included patients with bilateral implantation of EROV IOLs. The uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for distance, intermediate, and near vision was recorded at 6 weeks and 6 months’ postoperative visit. A subjective questionnaire was administered to assess spectacle independence, photic phenomenon, and overall satisfaction. All data were recorded using Microsoft Excel worksheet. The analyses were performed using SPSS for windows software.

Results:

Our study included fifty patients with bilateral implantation of EROV IOLs. The mean age was 59.84 ± 11.68 years. The mean uncorrected binocular distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (in standard decimal equivalent) was 0.89,0.99 and 0.99 respectively, at 6 months’ postoperative visit. Ninety-six percent of the patients did not require spectacles for distance and 98% of the patients were free from spectacles for intermediate and near vision. 94% of our patients perceived no or minimal photic phenomena such as glare and halos. The mean subjective patient satisfaction score (out of 10) for distance, intermediate, and near was 9, 10, and 9, respectively.

Conclusion:

The EROV IOLs demonstrated high levels of spectacle independence for distance, intermediate, and near vision. The incidence of photic phenomena observed was minimal with a high level of patient satisfaction.

Comparison of visual outcomes with implantation of trifocal versus bifocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification: a Meta-analysis

AIM

To compare a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a bifocal IOL implantation in improving visual function after cataract surgery.

METHODS

Eligible literatures were systematically searched through EMBASE and PubMed databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective comparative clinical trials on cataract surgery comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL implantation that assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and subjective vision quality. The effects were computed as standardized mean differences and pooled using fixed-effect or random-effect models.

RESULTS

Four prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cohorts provided data were included by a systematic review, comprising 265 eyes implanted with trifocal IOLs and 264 eyes implanted with bifocal IOLs. Monocular distance visual acuity (VA) showed a statistically significant but small difference that favored trifocal IOLs (MD=-0.06; 95%CI, -0.10 to -0.02; Z=2.90, P=0.004 for uncorrected distance VA, and MD= -0.02; 95%CI, -0.03 to -0.00; Z=2.02, P=0.04 for corrected distance VA), but the data did not suggest that the effect of trifocal IOL implantation would clinically outperform bifocal IOL implantation. There was no significant difference in monocular near VA (MD=-0.01; 95%CI, -0.07 to 0.04; Z=0.42, P=0.68 for distance-corrected near VA, and MD=-0.01; 95%CI, -0.06 to 0.03; Z=0.55, P=0.58 for corrected near VA) or refraction between two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality had no conclusive results.

CONCLUSION

All results indicate that trifocal IOL and bifocal IOL had similar levels of monocular distance and near VA.

Myopic Shift after Implantation of a Novel Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens in Korean Eyes

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of cataract surgery using novel diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in Koreans.

Methods

This was a retrospective, consecutive, interventional study of cataract surgery using POD FineVision IOL implantation. Complete ophthalmologic examinations were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. Defocus curves were assessed over a range of +1.5 to −4.0 diopters in 0.5-diopter steps at one month postoperatively. Uncorrected distant visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, corrected distant visual acuity, distant-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and distant-corrected near visual acuity were assessed one month postoperatively, and manifest refraction was performed during every visit.

Results

The study analyzed 31 eyes in 20 patients. There were statistically significant improvements in uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and distance-corrected near visual acuity (p < 0.001). The final postoperative refractive outcomes showed statistically significant myopic shifts compared to the target refraction based on SRK/T, SRK-II, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formulas (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

POD FineVision IOLs provide stable visual restoration with improvements of near and intermediate vision in presbyopic eyes. POD FineVision IOLs show myopic shift in a Korean population; therefore, surgeons should be cautious when selecting IOL power in such patients.

Optimizing outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses

Modern day cataract surgery is evolving from a visual restorative to a refractive procedure. The advent of multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs) allows greater spectacle independence and increased quality of life postoperatively. Since the inception in 1980s, MFIOLs have undergone various technical advancements including trifocal and extended depth of vision implants more recently. A thorough preoperative workup including the patients' visual needs and inherent ocular anatomy allows us to achieve superior outcomes. This review offers a comprehensive overview of the various types of MFIOLs and principles of optimizing outcomes through a comprehensive preoperative screening and management of postoperative complications.

Visual Performance of a Quadrifocal (Trifocal) Intraocular Lens Following Removal of the Crystalline Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate visual performance after implantation of a quadrifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

STUDY POPULATION

Twenty-seven patients (54 eyes) received bilateral implantation of the PanOptix IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptixTM; Alcon Research, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) pre-enrollment. Exclusion criteria were previous ocular surgeries, corneal astigmatism of >1.5 diopter (D), ocular pathologies, or corneal abnormalities. Intervention or Observational Procedure(s): Postoperative examination at 3 months including manifest refraction; uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA) in 4 m, 80 cm, 60 cm, and 40 cm slit-lamp examination; defocus testing; contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and mesopic conditions; and a questionnaire on subjective quality of vision, optical phenomena, and spectacle independence was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

At 3 months postoperatively, UCVA and DCVA in 4 m, 80 cm, 60 cm, and 40 cm (logMAR), defocus curves, CS, and quality-of-vision questionnaire results.

RESULTS

Mean spherical equivalent was -0.04 ± 0.321 D 3 months postoperatively. Binocular UCVA at distance, intermediate (80 cm, 60 cm), and near was 0.00 ± 0.094 logMAR, 0.09 ± 0.107 logMAR, 0.00 ± 0.111 logMAR, and 0.01 ± 0.087 logMAR, respectively. Binocular defocus curve showed peaks with best visual acuity (VA) at 0.00 D (-0.07 logMAR) and -2.00 D (-0.02 logMAR).

CONCLUSION

Visual performance of the PanOptix IOL showed good VA at all distances; particularly good intermediate VA (logMAR > 0.1), with best VA at 60 cm; and high patient satisfaction and spectacle independence 3 months postoperatively.

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

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses in bilateral cataract and/or refractive lens exchange (RLE) surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Web of Science was performed through October 2016 to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. The primary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), defocus curve, spectacle independence, patient satisfaction and contrast sensitivity. The secondary outcomes were residual sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder and complications.

RESULTS

Six RCTs and 2 cohort studies including 568 eyes (278 in the trifocal group and 290 in the bifocal group) were identified. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in UDVA (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.05 to -0.01, P = 0.005), but the difference (0.03 log MAR) is not clinically significant. Intermediate visual acuity was better in the trifocal IOL group judging from UIVA and defocus curves. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in residual cylinder (WMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.20, P = 0.02), and subgroup AT Lisa tri 839MP trifocal also showed significant better UNVA than bifocal IOLs (WMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.17 to -0.08, P<0.00001). However, no significant differences were observed in UNVA (WMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.02, P = 0.19), spectacle independence (WMD: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.89 to 18.15, P = 0.07), patient satisfaction (WMD: 4.01, 95% CI: 0.07 to 22.72, P = 0.87), residual sphere (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.13, P = 0.74), SE (WMD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.16, P = 0.55) or complications (WMD: 2.08, 95% CI: 0.35 to 12.43, P = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Trifocal IOL technology (especially AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal) had a clear advantage over bifocal IOLs in intermediate visual acuity, while both trifocal IOLs and bifocal IOLs showed excellent performance in distance visual acuity. AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal could provide better uncorrected near visual acuity than bifocal IOLs. However, more evidence is needed to compare their spectacle independence, higher satisfaction rate, and photic phenomena.

Objective and subjective results following implantation of the FineVision trifocal intraocular lens in Mexican patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate objective and subjective results after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in a Mexican population.

METHODS

Prospective, interventional case series involved 15 cataract surgery patients who underwent bilateral implantation of the trifocal Micro F lens FineVision IOL (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). Objective analysis involved assessment of monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), near (UNVA) at 30 and 40 cm, and intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 50, 60, and 70 cm, preoperatively, and at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6. Higher-order aberrations were assessed via aberrometry. Contrast sensitivity was determined via modulation transfer function. Subjective outcomes were assessed using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25).

RESULTS

At postoperative month 6, mean monocular UDVA was 0.06 ± 0.11 logMAR, and UNVA was 0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR at 30 cm and 0.05 ± 0.08 logMAR at 40 cm. Mean UIVA at 50, 60, and 70 cm was 0.12 ± 0.06, 0.13 ± 0.08, and 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively. Spherical equivalent at postoperative month 3 was 0.23 ± 0.4 diopters (D). Aberrometry revealed a mean RMS of 0.18 microm and PSF of 0.19 (Strehl ratio). VFQ-25 questionnaire results showed a mean score of 93.64 ± 4.19 points (maximum 100 points). Vision during distance and near activities was reported as "excellent." Adverse events were reported as occurring "never to occasionally."

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL in a Mexican population appears safe and effective, both objectively and subjectively. Good uncorrected visual acuity outcomes were achieved at far, near, and intermediate distances. Overall patient satisfaction was excellent.

Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes With a Monofocal and an Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes with an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL based on achromatic diffractive technology.

METHODS

This was a prospective comparative study including 80 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the monofocal Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Abbott Medical Optics Inc., Santa Ana, CA) (monofocal group: 30 eyes of 15 patients) or the ERV Tecnis Symfony IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) (ERV group: 50 eyes of 25 patients). Visual, refractive, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, ocular optical quality (Optical Quality Analysis System; Visiometrics SL, Terrassa, Spain), and quality of life (National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument 42 Questionnaire) outcomes were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Significantly better postoperative uncorrected monocular and binocular distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities were found in the ERV group (P ≥ .013). Postoperative spherical equivalent was within ±1.00 diopters in 94% and 100% of eyes in the ERV and the monofocal groups, respectively. Binocular UIVA and UNVA of 0.20 or better (Snellen 20/30) were observed in all cases in the ERV group and in 13.3% and 6.7% of eyes of the monofocal group, respectively. No significant differences among groups were observed in contrast sensitivity (P ≥ .156) or ocular optical quality parameters (P ≥ .084). In the monocular defocus curve, all visual acuities were better in the ERV group (P ≤ .002), except for the +0.50-diopter defocus level (P = .367). Significantly better scores were obtained for dependence on correction (P = .003) and suboptimal correction (P = .038) subscales in the ERV group.

CONCLUSIONS

The extended range of vision IOL provides better distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity than the aspheric monofocal IOL, while maintaining the same level of visual quality. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(7):436-442.].

Stability of a Novel Intraocular Lens Design: Comparison of Two Trifocal Lenses

PURPOSE

To compare visual outcomes, rotational stability, and centration in a randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing cataract surgery who were bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with a similar optical zone but different haptic shape.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients (42 eyes) with cataract and less than 1.50 D of corneal astigmatism underwent implantation of one FineVision/MicoF IOL in one eye and one POD FineVision IOL in the contralateral eye (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) at IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. IOL allocation was random. Outcome measures, all evaluated 3 months postoperatively, included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA), and near (DCNVA) visual acuity (at 80, 40, and 25 cm) under photopic conditions, refraction, IOL centration, haptic rotation, dysphotopsia, objective quality of vision and aberration quantification, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

Three months postoperatively, mean monocular UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA (40 cm) under photopic conditions were 0.04 ± 0.07, 0.01 ± 0.04, 0.15 ± 0.11, and 0.16 ± 0.08 logMAR for the eyes implanted with the POD FineVision IOL and 0.03 ± 0.05, 0.01 ± 0.02, 0.17 ± 0.12, and 0.14 ± 0.08 logMAR for those receiving the FineVision/MicroF IOL. Moreover, the POD FineVision IOL showed similar centration (P> .05) and better rotational stability (P < .05) than the FineVision/MicroF IOL. Regarding halos, there was a minimal but statistically significant difference, obtaining better results with FineVision/MicroF. Full spectacle independence was reported by all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed similar visual outcomes for both trifocal IOLs under test (POD FineVision and FineVision/MicroF). However, the POD FineVision IOL showed better rotational stability, as afforded by its design. [J Refract Surg. 2016;32(6):394-402.].