Сравнение трифокальных ИОЛ и ИОЛ с расширенной глубиной фокуса с минимонозрением

Abstract

In recent years, a new class of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs has been available on the market. There are limited papers available in the literature comparing trifocal and EDOF IOL data, and the results are often contradictory Purpose. Comparative analysis of the results of trifocal and EDOF IOL implantation in patients with presbyopia. Material and methods. The prospective study included 72 patients (144 eyes) after bilateral Tecnis Symfony EDOF IOL (18 patients, 36 eyes; Group I) or AcrySof PanOptix trifocal IOL (54 patients, 108 eyes; Group II) implantation. Minimonovision was used in 41 patients out of 72 (56.9%), i.e., IOL calculation on the non-driven eye was performed at -0.5 D. The average follow-up period for the patients was 7.1±1.2 months. Results. In all groups, there was a significant (p<0.05) increase in UCNVA, UCIVA, and UCDVA during the maximum follow-up period compared to the preoperative indices. Group II was characterized by slightly better UCNVA dynamics (0.85±0.13 versus 0.2±0.04 before surgery versus 0.78±0.11 versus 0.19±0.06 before surgery in group I), but differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences (p=0.046) were obtained when comparing BCNVA in group I and II (0.79±0.05 and 0.98±0.08, respectively) at 6 months follow-up compared with the preoperative period (0.62±0.09 and 0.6±0.11, respectively). Conclusion. Trifocal IOL implantation was associated with acceptable near and far vision correction and a higher frequency of adverse optical phenomena, while extended depth of focus IOL implantation was associated with slightly better mid-distance vision correction and a significantly lower frequency of halo and glare. In all cases, patients were satisfied with the results of surgery. Key words: cataract phacoemulsification, presbyopia, multifocal IOLs, extended depth of focus IOLs, minimonovision.