Comparison Between Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal IOL and Mix-and-Match Implantation of a Bifocal IOL and an Extended Depth of Focus IOL

[Complex optical systems for individualized correction of presbyopia]

A multitude of available intraocular lens (IOL) models enable a personalized approach to presbyopia correction in order to meet each patient's needs. This review article discusses more complex approaches which can be useful in selected cases. The concept of reversible trifocality enables correction of presbyopia using a supplementary intraocular lens (IOL), which can be removed if necessary (e.g., intolerance to multifocal optics). The use of capsulotomy-fixated IOLs enables high precision for positioning of the lens and better stability compared to conventional capsular bag-fixated IOLs, which can be particularly advantageous in multifocal optics. The mix and match concept enables a combination of different IOLs with various optical principles to achieve the desired binocular effect. Binocular IOL systems, which consist of two complementary IOLs, can be seen as a further development of the mix and match concept. Knowledge of the available options and their application can further improve correction of presbyopia.

Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction

BACKGROUND

Cataract, defined as an opacity of the lens in one or both eyes, is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Cataract may initially be treated with new spectacles, but often surgery is required, which involves removing the cataract and placing a new artificial lens, usually made from hydrophobic acrylic. Recent advancements in intraocular lens (IOL) technology have led to the emergence of a diverse array of implantable lenses that aim to minimise spectacle dependence at all distances (near, intermediate, and distance). To assess the relative merits of these lenses, measurements of visual acuity are needed. Visual acuity is a measurement of the sharpness of vision at a distance of 6 metres (or 20 feet). Normal vision is 6/6 (or 20/20). The Jaegar eye card is used to measure near visual acuity. J1 is the smallest text and J2 is considered equivalent to 6/6 (or 20/20) for near vision.

OBJECTIVES

To compare visual outcomes after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) to those of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs. To produce a brief economic commentary summarising recent economic evaluations that compare trifocal IOLs with EDOF IOLs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries on 15 June 2022. For our economic evaluation, we also searched MEDLINE and Embase using economic search filters to 15 June 2022, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) from 1968 up to and including 31 December 2014. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing trifocal and EDOF IOLs in adults undergoing cataract surgery. We did not include studies involving people receiving IOLs for correction of refractive error alone (or refractive lens exchange in the absence of cataract).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from the reports. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies that compared trifocal and EDOF lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. Three trifocal lenses (AcrySof IQ PanOptix, ATLISA Tri 839MP, FineVision Micro F) and one EDOF lens (TECNIS Symfony ZXR00) were evaluated. The studies took place in Europe and North America. Follow-up ranged from three to six months. Of the 239 enroled participants, 233 (466 eyes) completed follow-up and were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 68.2 years, and 64% of participants were female. In general, the risk of bias in the studies was unclear as methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported, and we judged one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as low, downgrading for the risk of bias and for imprecision. In two studies involving a total of 254 people, there was little or no difference between trifocal and EDOF lenses for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6. Sixty per cent of participants in both groups had uncorrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.88 to 1.27). Thirty-one per cent of the trifocal group and 38% of the EDOF group had corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39). In one study of 60 people, there were fewer cases of uncorrected near visual acuity worse than J2 in the trifocal group (3%) compared with the EDOF group (30%) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65). In two studies, participants were asked about spectacle independence using subjective questionnaires. There was no evidence of either lens type being superior. One further study of 60 participants reported, "overall, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence", but did not categorise this by lens type. All studies included postoperative patient-reported visual function, which was measured using different questionnaires. Irrespective of the questionnaire used, both types of lenses scored well, and there was little evidence of any important differences between them. Two studies included patient-reported ocular aberrations (glare and halos). The outcomes were reported in different ways and could not be pooled; individually, these studies were too small to detect meaningful differences in glare and halos between groups. One study reported no surgical complications. Three studies did not mention surgical complications. One study reported YAG capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification (PCO) in one participant (one eye) in each group. One study reported no PCO. Two studies did not report PCO. One study reported that three participants (one trifocal and two EDOF) underwent laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) to correct residual myopic refractive error or astigmatism. One study reported a subset of participants who were considering laser enhancement at the end of the study period (nine trifocal and two EDOF). Two studies did not report laser enhancement rates. No economic evaluation studies were identified for inclusion in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Distance visual acuity after cataract surgery may be similar whether the lenses implanted are trifocal IOLs or EDOF (TECNIS Symfony) IOLs. People receiving trifocal IOLs may achieve better near vision and may be less dependent on spectacles for near vision. Both lenses were reported to have adverse subjective visual phenomena, such as glare and halos, with no meaningful difference detected between lenses.

Clinical Outcomes of a New Hydrophobic Trifocal Intraocular Lens with Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate in Cataract Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcomes of new hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens with hydroxyethyl methacrylate in the Korean population.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, and observational study evaluated the clinical outcomes of 80 eyes of 40 patients with age-related cataract underwent cataract surgery using CNWT (Clareon PanOptix). Assessment included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (at 60cm), near visual acuity (at 40 and 33 cm), uncorrected defocus curves, questionnaires evaluating photic phenomena, spectacle independence, and spectacle free satisfaction.

RESULTS

At postoperative 3 months, mean uncorrected binocular visual acuities were 0.04, 0.04, 0.03 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) at far, intermediate, and near distances, respectively. All patients achieved uncorrected binocular visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR or better. Monocular and binocular defocus curve indicated a mean visual acuity of 0.2 logMAR or better at the defocus range of +1.0 to - 3.0 diopters (100 to 33 cm) and +1.0 to - 3.5 diopters (100 to 28 cm). High spectacle independence was observed at all distances, with 37.5% patients reporting photic phenomena.

CONCLUSIONS

The Clareon PanOptix intraocular lens has shown positive clinical outcomes, providing a viable option for cataract surgery. These lenses effectively address patients' visual needs, especially in intermediate and near distance tasks, reducing dependence on glasses.

Visual results and subjective satisfaction after implantation of two different trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses models (AcrySof IQ PanOptix and AT LISA tri 839 MP)

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare visual results following the implantation of two distinct diffractive trifocal IOLs utilizing various vision evaluation techniques and subjective satisfaction.

METHODS

The study included 32 eyes receiving AcrySof IQ PanOptix implantation and 32 receiving AT LISA tri 839 MP. Post-operative examination at one year included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA) at 4 m, 80 cm, 60 cm, and 40 cm, Contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, and a questionnaire on subjective quality of vision, optical phenomena, and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in baseline demographics, pre-operative visual, biometric data (except for axial length), and surgical paraments. The PanOptix outperformed the AT LISA tri in the intermediate range when using the standard visual acuity testing (UCVA: 0.23 ± 0.14 logMAR vs. 0.31 ± 0.17 logMAR, p = 0.04; BCVA: 0.21 ± 0.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.14, p = 0.03) and in the intermediate and far range when using the interactive computer program (intermediate: UNVA "E" optotype test: 0.05 ± 0.12 vs. 0.12 ± 0.13, p = 0.03; Far: UNVA "E" optotype: 0.07 ± 0.12 vs. 0.13 ± 0.10, p = 0.05). In addition, the PanOptix group had higher contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare at all spatial frequencies. There was no difference in subjective outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received PanOptix IOL had better visual outcomes for intermediate and far with higher contrast sensitivity under various conditions. Based on patients ' needs and demands, these results could support discussion when tailoring the optimal multifocal IOl.

Comparison of bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus lenses and a blend approach of extended depth of focus lenses and bifocal lenses in cataract patients

BACKGROUND

To compare the visual outcomes, spectacle independent rate and stereopsis in patients who underwent bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL), or a blend approach of EDOF and bifocal IOL.

METHODS

A total of 60 cataract patients, who were scheduled for phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in both eyes in West China Hospital of Sichuan University, were enrolled and divided into Micro monovision group(-0.5D~-1.0D), Non-micro monovision group (< 0.5D) with Symfony IOL, and Mixed group with Symfony and ZMB00 IOLs. Three months postoperatively, we compared the visual acuity, modulation transfer function (MTF), defocus curve, stereopsis, spectacle independence, and photic phenomena among the three groups.

RESULTS

Compared to the Non-micro monovision group (UNVA: 0.07 ± 0.04), Micro monovision group (UNVA: 0.00 ± 0.07, P < 0.001) and Mixed group (UNVA: -0.02 ± 0.06, P < 0.001) showed improvement in binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). Additionally, Mixed group exhibited lower MTF10 (MTF10: 0.38 ± 0.24) and point spread function (PSF: 0.192 ± 0.269) results in their non-dominant eye compared to both Micro monovision group (MTF10: 0.56 ± 0.21, P = 0.027; PSF: 0.417 ± 0.282, P = 0.034) and Non-micro monovision group (MTF10: 0.55 ± 0.19, P = 0.038; PSF: 0.408 ± 0.285, P = 0.003). Spectacle independence for near vision were higher in both the Micro monovision (45%) and Mixed (55%) group compared to the Non-micro monovision group (40%). The Mixed group also reported higher incidence of photic phenomena (25%). However, there were no significant differences in stereoscopic function among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Both micro monovision and mix-and-match methods can help patients to obtain better visual outcomes at different distances. Mix-and-match method has better near visual acuity, while micro monovision method has better intermediate visual acuity. Non-micro monovision methods will affect patients' near vision outcomes. Binocularly implanted EDOF IOL has better contrast sensitivity.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration date:11/07/2023.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2300073433.

TRIAL REGISTRY

West China Hospital of Sichuan University retrospectively registered.

Visual performance and subjective experience 3 months and 12 months after combined implantation of 2 new complementary continuous phase multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To assess the 3-month and 12-month postoperative visual performance and subjective quality of vision (QoV) after combined implantation of complementary continuous phase multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Private practice, United Kingdom.

DESIGN

Case series.

METHODS

The study enrolled 44 patients undergoing phacoemulsification with implantation of an Artis Symbiose Mid in the dominant eye and an Artis Symbiose Plus in the nondominant eye. Refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), electronic reading desk, and a QoV questionnaire were evaluated at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean binocular UDVA was -0.06 ± 0.08 logMAR and -0.07 ± 0.06 logMAR at 3 months and 12 months ( P = .097), respectively. The mean binocular UIVA was 0.03 ± 0.13 logMAR and 0.03 ± 0.10 logMAR ( P = 1.0), respectively. The mean binocular UNVA was 0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR and 0.07 ± 0.08 logMAR ( P = .875), respectively. There was a significant improvement in QoV for both day and night between 3 and 12 months, with a significant reduction in halos at 12 months. Spectacle independence was reported in 93.2% of cases at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The Artis Symbiose Mid and Plus IOL combined implantation provided an excellent range of uncorrected vision at 3 and 12 months. There was a significant improvement in QoV and less halos at 12 months. This IOL combination provided very high rates of complete spectacle independence.

Comparison of visual performance between bifocal and extended-depth-of-focus intraocular lenses

We compared the visual performance of a bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (ZMB00) and an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL (ZXR00V) by evaluating postoperative parameters at 10 weeks after the last surgery in cataract patients who underwent bilateral ZMB00 or ZXR00V implantation between 2011 and 2020. The right and left lenses were implanted within 3 months of each other. The study enrolled 1536 eyes of 768 patients; the ZMB00 group comprised 1326 eyes of 663 patients (age: 67.0 ± 7.8 years; female/male, 518/145), and the ZXR00V group comprised 210 eyes of 105 patients (age: 67.8 ± 6.9 years; female/male, 39/66). A linear mixed-effects model using data for both eyes, with strict adjustments for sex, age, subjective refraction spherical equivalent, subjective refraction cylinder, corneal astigmatism, axial length, corneal higher-order aberrations and pupil diameter, ensured statistical validity. Uncorrected near visual acuity, corrected near visual acuity, and near spectacle independence were significantly better in the ZMB00 group (p<0.00068, Wald test) than in the ZXR00V group. Contrast sensitivity (visual angle of the test target: 4.0°/2.5°/1.6°/1.0°/0.7°) and contrast sensitivity with glare (4.0°/2.5°/1.6°/1.0°/0.7°) were significantly better in the ZXR00V group (p<0.00068, Wald test) than in the ZMB00 group. Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity with glare (6.3°), and 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) scores for General Vision were slightly but significantly better in the ZXR00V group than in the ZMB00 group (p<0.05, Wald test). At high-performance levels, the two IOL groups had different characteristics regarding various visual performance parameters.

Clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of new generation monofocal IOL enhanced for intermediate distance and conventional monofocal IOL in a Korean population

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of enhanced intermediate function intraocular lenses (IOLs) and standard monofocal IOLs.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, comparative controlled study, we compared the visual outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery at the Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, with either enhanced monofocal IOLs (Tecnis Eyhance, ICB00, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc) (Group 1) or standard monofocal IOLs (Tecnis, ZCB00, Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Inc) (Group 2). The assessment included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate (UIVA at 60 cm) and near (UNVA at 40 cm) visual acuity, uncorrected defocus curves, contrast sensitivity testing (CST), and reading speed test using Quality of vision was evaluated using the Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25).

RESULTS

At 3-months postoperatively, monocular and binocular outcomes of UIVA and UNVA were statistically significantly better in Group 1 (P < 0.05). The binocular uncorrected defocus curve of Group 1 showed statistically significantly better outcomes at vergence ranges of -1.5 to -4.0 D (P < 0.05). Significantly higher reading speed test was also observed in Group 1 in all ranges tested (1.0 to 0.1 LogMAR) (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in CST between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation of enhanced monofocal IOLs provided better vision at intermediate and near distances compared to standard monofocal IOLs, while maintaining good distance vision and contrast sensitivity.

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.

Contrast Sensitivity and Patient Reported Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Bi-Aspheric Hydrophobic Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To assess contrast sensitivity and patient reported outcomes after uncomplicated cataract surgery with a new bi-aspheric diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

Methods

Twenty-five patients who underwent bilateral implantation with the Asqelio Trifocal TFLIO130C IOL (AST Products Inc., Billerica, MA, USA) were analyzed at 6 months post-surgery. Binocular contrast sensitivity with and without glare was measured under photopic conditions (85 cd/m²) and mesopic conditions (3 cd/m²). Patients were asked to complete the Catquest-9SF patient outcomes questionnaire and a visual symptoms questionnaire.

Results

Photopic contrast sensitivity values were either within or above normal levels without glare; when glare was induced, the mean sensitivity values dropped just below normal range. Mesopic contrast sensitivity values were above or within normal range both with and without glare, except for 12 cpd with glare, where the mean fell just below the normal range. Differences in binocular contrast sensitivity threshold values with and without glare were significant for all spatial frequencies tested under both photopic and mesopic conditions (p<0.05). The Catquest-9SF questionnaire outcomes showed that 88% of patients were either satisfied or very satisfied with their sight after the surgery, and in all cases, the results indicated no difficulty in performing different daily activities. The visual symptoms questionnaire indicated no relevant visual symptoms regarding frequency, intensity, or bothersomeness after implantation of the trifocal IOL.

Conclusion

This novel bi-aspheric diffractive trifocal IOL provides good contrast sensitivity outcomes under bright and dim lighting conditions. Patients were satisfied with the surgery, with no relevant visual symptoms.

Complementary system vs conventional trifocal intraocular lens: comparison of optical quality metrics and unwanted light distribution

PURPOSE

To evaluate the ARTIS Symbiose complementary intraocular lens (IOL) system, consisting of the MID and PLUS models, in comparison with a conventional trifocal IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptix).

SETTING

The David J. Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

DESIGN

Laboratory investigation.

METHODS

Modulation and phase transfer functions were obtained in polychromatic light using an optical bench setup. Simulated visual acuity (VA) values were derived from optical quality metrics weighted by neural contrast sensitivity. United States Air Force (USAF) chart images were acquired and processed. Furthermore, the light distribution beyond the center of a polychromatic point spread function was assessed.

RESULTS

The peak simulated VA values of ARTIS Symbiose MID were at 0 diopters (D) of defocus (-0.02 logMAR) and at -1.5 D (0.00 logMAR); of ARTIS Symbiose PLUS, they were at 0 D of defocus (-0.01 logMAR) and at -2.5 D (0.01 logMAR). AcrySof IQ PanOptix demonstrated 3 peaks: at 0 D of defocus (-0.02 logMAR), at -1.75 D (0.03 logMAR), and at -2.5 D (0.02 logMAR). The summation of USAF chart images in the simulated binocular IOL system produced a slightly better image quality at -1.0 D and -1.5 D than AcrySof IQ PanOptix. The IOLs yielded comparable light spread across the studied range except for a localized intensity spike of the ARTIS Symbiose IOLs.

CONCLUSIONS

The complementary IOL system may yield better monocular intermediate VA compared with the conventional trifocal IOL. However, the effect of binocular summation in terms of VA and the perception of photic phenomena still needs to be investigated.

Comparative Visual Outcome Analysis of a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens and a New Diffractive Multifocal Lens with Extended Depth of Focus

This study compares the visual and refractive performance of the TECNIS Synergy (DFR00V-DFW150-225-300-375) multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and the AcrySof IQ PanOptix (TFAT00-30-40-50-60) multifocal IOL. Patients who underwent phacoemulsification and cataract extraction and received either a multifocal Synergy or PanOptix IOL were included. Monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), near (UNVA), and corrected distance (CDVA) visual acuities were assessed at three and six months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures of photic phenomena were also assessed. A total of 140 patients (224 eyes) were included in this study, with 69 patients (105 eyes) in the Synergy group and 71 patients (119 eyes) in the PanOptix group. There were no statistically significant differences in UIVA or CDVA measurements across all time points. When assessing UDVA, at three months postoperatively, there were more eyes in the PanOptix group with vision better than 20/40 (p = 0.04). At three and six months postoperatively, the average UNVA was superior in the Synergy group (p = 0.01, 0.002). While the Synergy group reported more night vision disturbances at one and three months (p = 0.01, 0.03), the PanOptix group had more night vision disturbances at six months (p = 0.02). Although not statistically significant, the AcrySof IQ PanOptix multifocal IOL demonstrated better UDVA and UIVA sooner postoperatively than the TECNIS Synergy multifocal IOL. The Synergy IOL provided statistically better UNVA compared to the PanOptix IOL at three and six months postoperatively. Synergy patients reported more early photic phenomena than PanOptix patients, which later diminished.

Visual outcomes and subjective experience with three intraocular lenses based presbyopia correcting strategies in cataract patients

To compare the visual outcomes and subjective experience of three intraocular lenses (IOL) implant strategies. Retrospective comparative study. This study comprised patients who underwent phacoemulsification and bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (ZXR00; EDOF group), blended implantation of EDOF and bifocal IOL (ZXR00/ZLB00; blended group), and bilateral implantation of trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP; trifocal group). The outcomes included visual acuity (VA), visual defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, quality of life, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction. Follow-up was performed 3 months after the surgery. This study included 114 eyes of 57 patients (20 in EDOF group; 16 in blended group; 21 in trifocal group). Patients in the three groups had high quality of life, patient satisfaction, and good contrast sensitivity. The EDOF group had the worst near VA, but the visual quality was the best. The blended group had good VA and slight photic disturbance. The trifocal group obtained the best whole range of VA, but the photic disturbance was significantly severe than the EDOF group. Both the blended and trifocal groups achieved high spectacle independence, but some patients in the EDOF group need spectacle when dealing with close-range tasks.

Comparisons of visual outcomes between bilateral implantation and mix-and-match implantation of three types intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare binocular static visual acuity (SVA), stereopsis, contrast sensitivity (CS) and dynamic visual acuity (DVA) of 5 combinations of bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), trifocal IOLs and extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in age-related cataract patients.

METHODS

Two hundred and ninety-two eyes of 146 patients who underwent cataract surgery in the ophthalmology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were involved. Subgroups included group MM (33patients, bilaterally bifocal IOL, ZMB00), group TT (31patients, bilaterally trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP), group XX (34patients, bilaterally EDOF IOL, ZXR00), group MX (25patients, bifocal IOL, ZMB00 + EDOF IOL, ZXR00) and group TX (23patients, trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP + EDOF IOL, ZXR00). The uncorrected SVAs (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA), uncorrected DVAs (UDDVA, UIDVA and UNDVA), near and distance stereopsis, and CS were assessed 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Subgroups of TT, XX, MX and TX showed better UIVA than MM (bP = 0.039, 0.021, 0.035 and 0.037, respectively). MX showed better UNVA than MM and TX (bP = 0.031 and 0.013, respectively). MX group had the optimal outcomes of both near and distance stereopsis. In the UDDVA, XX group and MX group showed better outcomes than TX group at 24 fps (frames per second) (bP = 0.019 and 0.023, respectively). XX group and MX group showed optimal outcomes at all speeds of UIDVA (P = 0.001, 0.005, 0.003 and 0.005, respectively). As the speed increased, the XX group and the MX group showed better UNDVA than the MM group and the TT group (P = 0.019, 0.002 and 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Mix-and-match implantation of bifocal IOLs and EDOF IOLs provides excellent and stable binocular visual outcomes including SVA, stereopsis and DVA in distant and near distances.

Clinical Outcomes, Contrast Sensitivity, Reading Performance and Patient Satisfaction Following Bilateral Implantation of AT LARA 829MP EDoF IOLs

Purpose

To evaluate the visual outcomes, contrast sensitivity, reading performance and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of AT LARA extended depth of focus (EDoF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

Patients undergoing phacoemulsification for age-related cataract and satisfying the eligibility criteria underwent bilateral implantation with AT LARA EDoF IOLs (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). At follow-up visits of 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, binocular uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, reading performance, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity and patient satisfaction for dysphotopsia and spectacle independence were evaluated.

Results

A total of 60 eyes from 30 patients with a mean age of 65.40±7.71 years were included in the study. At 12 months, 83% of patients (n=25) had binocular cumulative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 or better. Postoperative spherical equivalent refraction accuracy was within ±0.50 D for 95% of eyes (n=57) and refractive cylinder accuracy was within ≤0.50 D in 95% of eyes (n=57). The mean binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was 0.16±0.09 logMAR, and the mean uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 60 and 80 cm was 0.01±0.09 and 0.03±0.08 logMAR, respectively, at 12 months. Reading speeds at 40, 60 and 80 cm showed improvement over time. No patient had complaints of severe dysphotopsia and none of the patients required glasses for any activity. No eye underwent YAG-laser capsulotomy for significant posterior capsule opacification at the end of mean follow-up.

Conclusion

In our limited experience of 30 patients at 12 months, AT LARA EDoF IOLs resulted in excellent visual outcomes for uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. The incidence of dysphotopsia and spectacle dependence was low, resulting in good patient satisfaction.

Trial Registry

CTRI/2020/08/027105 (www.ctri.nic.in).

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

PURPOSE

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

SETTING

Clínica Rementería, Madrid, Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Unilateral implantation of a new non-diffractive extended range-of-vision IOL in a young patient with Curschmann-Steinert myotonic dystrophy

Purpose

We present the case of a 36-year old Curschmann-Steinert myotonic dystrophy patient with posterior subcapsular cataract that we treated with unilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens to address his wish for spectacle independence at far and intermediate distance.

Observations

The patient underwent phacoemulsification with subsequent implantation of the AcrySof IQ Vivity IOL (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) in his left eye. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) on the left eye increased from +0.40 logMAR preoperatively to −0.12 logMAR at 3 months postoperatively. At the three months follow-up distance corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 cm distance was −0.08 logMAR and DCIVA at 66 cm distance was 0.14 logMAR for the left eye. The defocus curve showed a functional defocus of 2.0 diopters at 0.2 logMAR or better, corresponding to the extended depth of focus. Dysphotopsia evaluation with a Halo & Glare simulator (Eyeland-Design Network GmbH, Vreden, Germany) revealed a very low level of photic phenomena.

Conclusions and Importance

Unilateral implantation of a new generation, non-diffractive extended depth of focus IOL was well tolerated and provided good functional results for far and intermediate distances. The patient reported a very low level of photic phenomena.