Trifocal Group Research Articles

The Postoperative Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Trifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses in Patients with Different Biometric Characteristics.

We aimed to survey the potential correlation between biometric parameters and postoperative outcomes after implanting extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) and trifocal IOLs. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, and patients receiving EDOF or trifocal IOL implantations were included. In total, 36 and 26 eyes were enrolled in the EDOF and trifocal groups, respectively. The primary outcomes of this study were the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and spherical equivalent (SE). The generalized linear model was applied to evaluate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of primary outcomes in patients with different biometric characters. The final UDVA of the EDOF group was significantly better than that of the trifocal group (p = 0.020), and the UNVA and SE did not show significant differences between the two groups throughout the postoperative period (all p > 0.05). In a multivariable analysis, the UDVA was significantly better in the EDOF group than in the trifocal group (p = 0.038). For the subgroup analysis, the high axial length (AXL) value correlated to a lower postoperative UDVA in the EDOF group (both p < 0.05). Additionally, a large white-to-white (WTW) diameter was related to worse postoperative UNVA in the trifocal group (p = 0.042), and a high AXL was associated with higher SE in both the EDOF and trifocal groups (both p < 0.05). In conclusion, a high AXL correlates to worse postoperative outcomes in both the EDOF and trifocal IOLs, and trifocal IOL outcomes could be affected by large WTW diameters.

Comparison of visual performance between diffractive bifocal and diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses

To evaluate the visual performance of a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with + 4.0 D near addition (ZMB00) and a diffractive trifocal IOL with + 2.17 D and + 3.25 D near addition (AcrySof IQ PanOptix TFNT00), we investigated the 10-week postoperative parameters after cataract surgery in which ZMB00 or TFNT00 lenses were implanted bilaterally from 2011 to 2020 (with a 3-month interval between implantation of the right and left lenses). The study included 1448 eyes of 724 patients. The diffractive bifocal group comprised 1326 eyes of 663 patients (aged 67.0 ± 7.8 years; females/males, 518/145), and the diffractive trifocal group comprised 122 eyes of 61 patients (aged 66.6 ± 7.3 years; females/males, 35/26). 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 and higher-order aberrations (ocular/internal, scaled to a pupil size of 4 mm) (Wavefront_4mm_postoperative_Ocular/Internal_Spherical) were significantly better in the bifocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test). Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (6.3/4.0/2.5/1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees), and contrast sensitivity with glare (4.0/1.6/1.0/0.7 degrees) were significantly better in the trifocal group (p < 0.00068, Wald test).

Mix-and-match vs bilateral trifocal and bilateral EDOF intraocular lens implantation: the spline curve battle.

To compare the postoperative visual acuity curves following 3 pseudophakic presbyopic correction techniques. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece. Prospective, randomized, comparative trial. For this study, patients with stage 2 Lens Opacities Classification System III cataract were divided into 3 study groups: (1) premium monovision group, including patients who received the Panoptix intraocular lens (IOL) in the recessive eye and Vivity IOL in the dominant one; (2) bilateral trifocal group, including those who received bilaterally the Panoptix IOL; and (3) bilateral xEDOF group, including patients who received bilaterally the Vivity IOL. Postoperative bilateral uncorrected distance visual acuity was measured at 25.5, 28, 33, 40, 50, 66, 100, 200, and 300 cm distances. Spline curve fitting was attempted, and areas of the curves (AOCs) and curvature k were calculated. All patients responded to the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ-25). 90 patients were equally divided into the 3 groups. Premium monovision and bilateral trifocal implantations delivered similar visual acuity (all AOC P > .05); however, the trifocal patients suffered from drops in vision acuity in certain distance ranges as expressed by negative curvature values. Bilateral xEDOF patients demonstrated worse near vision acuity ( P < .05). Premium monovision patients reported better scores in NEI-VFQ 25 ( P = .03) and in the near activities ( P = .02) and distant activities ( P = .04) subscales. All surgical options provided impressive outcomes. Premium monovision appeared to deliver the best results.

Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.

To assess visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes that had previously undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and to compare them with those recorded after implantation of a monofocal IOL. Retrospective comparative cases series. This study evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), safety, and efficacy after the implantation of two comparable trifocal IOL models and one monofocal IOL model in patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK. Patients were classified according to the implanted IOL (monofocal or trifocal). A total of 211 eyes from 170 patients received a monofocal IOL, and 211 eyes from 161 patients received a trifocal IOL. At the end of the study, after lensectomy, there was a higher myopic residual spherical equivalent in the monofocal group because some eyes had been targeted for slight myopia to achieve monovision; therefore, UDVA was better in the trifocal group. CDVA was comparable in both groups. As expected, both monocular and binocular UNVA were significantly better in the trifocal group. Although the percentage of eyes that lost ≥1 line of CDVA did not differ between the groups, the safety index was slightly better in the monofocal group. Although implantation of monofocal and trifocal IOLs after myopic LASIK yielded excellent distance visual outcomes, UNVA was significantly better for the trifocal IOL, with a minimally worse safety profile. Trifocal IOLs can be considered after previous LASIK for myopia, with an appropriate patient selection.

Comparative Analysis of Tolerance to Experimentally Induced Astigmatism with Three Types of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.

The effect of residual astigmatism and its axis on distance and near visual acuities (VAs) with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) has not been studied extensively. This study compared the tolerance to experimentally induced residual astigmatism among bifocal, trifocal, and extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs. This retrospective, comparative study included 70 eyes of 70 patients implanted with bifocal, trifocal, or EDOF IOLs. Distance and near VAs were assessed with experimentally induced astigmatism by placing positive cylindrical lenses in increments of 0.50 diopters to 2.00 diopters at 90° and 180° axes over the best distance correction. Both distance and near VAs worsened with increasing magnitudes of experimentally induced astigmatism except in the EDOF group, in which the near VA remained within a clinically acceptable limit, ie, within one line from the best corrected VA under all ranges of experimentally induced astigmatism. Furthermore, the EDOF group showed the highest astigmatic threshold for losing VA lines following experimental astigmatic induction at both distance and near. The distance VA was generally better at with-the-rule (WTR) than against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism for all three IOL groups. On the other hand, the near VA was generally better at WTR than ATR astigmatism in the bifocal group, comparable between WTR and ATR astigmatism in the trifocal group, and generally better at ATR than WTR astigmatism in the EDOF group. The EDOF IOL demonstrated the highest tolerance to experimentally induced astigmatism at both distance and near. VA was generally less affected by WTR astigmatism than ATR astigmatism, especially at distance. We proposed the residual astigmatism thresholds for clinically acceptable VA reduction in all three IOL groups.

Comparison of dynamic visual acuity after implantation of toric bifocal or trifocal intraocular lens in age-related cataract patients: a randomized controlled trial.

To investigate the dynamic visual acuity (DVA) after implantation of toric bifocal or trifocal intraocular lens in age-related cataract patients. This was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Of one hundred and twenty-four patients enrolled and randomized to receive unilateral phacoemulsification and toric trifocal (939 M/MP, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) or toric bifocal (909 M, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) intraocular lenses (IOL) implantation, ninety-nine patients completed the follow-up and were included in final analysis. Postoperatively, uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA and CDVA), intermediate (UIVA and DCIVA) and near (UNVA and DCNVA) static visual acuity, manifest refraction and uncorrected and corrected distance DVA (UDDVA and CDDVA) at 20, 40 and 80 degrees per second (dps) were evaluated at one week, one month and three months. Three months postoperatively, the UDVA were 0.13 ± 0.11 and 0.14 ± 0.13 in the toric trifocal and bifocal IOL group, respectively. Significant better UIVA (trifocal, 0.17 ± 0.13 vs. bifocal, 0.23 ± 0.13, p = 0.037) and DCIVA (trifocal, 0.16 ± 0.11 vs. bifocal, 0.20 ± 0.12, p = 0.048) were observed in patients implanting toric trifocal than bifocal IOL at three months postoperatively. Patients implanted with toric bifocal IOL obtained better CDDVA at 80 dps (0.5607 ± 0.2032) than the trifocal group (0.6573 ± 0.2450, p = 0.039) at three months. Postoperative UDDVA and CDDVA at 20, 40 and 80 dps were significantly associated with age (p < 0.05, respectively) and postoperative static visual acuity (p < 0.05, respectively). Toric trifocal IOL provides better static intermediate visual acuity, and toric bifocal IOL implantation provides better distance dynamic visual acuity at high speed.

Clinical prospective intra-individual comparison after mix-and-match implantation of a monofocal EDOF and a diffractive trifocal IOL.

To assess intra-individually visual acuity (VA) and subjective outcome after mix-and-match implantation of a monofocal EDOF IOL and a diffractive trifocal IOL. The monofocal EDOF Isopure IOL was implanted in the dominant eye and the trifocal FineVision HP IOL in the non-dominant eye. Postoperative evaluation included VA at various distances, contrast acuity, monocular defocus curves, decentration and tilt, wavefront aberrometry, VF-7 questionnaire and a halo and glare simulator. 50 eyes of 25 subjects were enroled. The trifocal IOL performed better at monocular DCNVA (p < 0.01) and at defocus levels of -1.5D to -4.0D (p < 0.01), the monofocal EDOF IOL was better at -0.5D (p = 0.013). No differences in monocular BCDVA, DCIVA, contrast acuity, decentration or tilt were observed (p > 0.05). Wavefront analysis revealed lower HOAs in the trifocal group at 5 mm (p < 0.01) and no difference (p = 0.107) at 3 mm pupil aperture. The monofocal EDOF IOL displayed increased negative SA at 5 mm (p < 0.01) and 3 mm (p < 0.01) pupil diameter. Low values of optical phenomena and satisfying results of the VF-7 questionnaire were obtained. Excellent visual performance and low rates of optical phenomena were achieved after mix-and-match implantation of the monofocal EDOF Isopure IOL and the trifocal FineVision HP IOL. Trifocal IOL implantation in the non-dominant eye may decrease optical disturbing phenomena. Similar results were observed for monocular distance, intermediate and contrast VA. The trifocal IOL provided better monocular near VA. Decentration and tilt and HOAs were low.

Comparison of visual performance and quality of life with a new nondiffractive EDOF intraocular lens and a trifocal intraocular lens.

To compare visual performance and quality of life (QoL) following bilateral implantation of a new nondiffractive extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) and a trifocal IOL. Department of Ophthalmology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. Prospective comparative interventional case series. 104 eyes of 52 patients with cataract, bilaterally implanted with a nondiffractive EDOF IOL or a trifocal IOL, were included. Outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance corrected intermediate visual acuity and distance corrected near visual acuity, defocus curves, QoL (Visual Function Index 14), quality of vision (Quality of Vision [QoV] index), contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart), and binocular reading speed. Twenty-six patients were included in each group. The UDVA and CDVA were better in the EDOF group (0.05 ± 0.04 and 0.01 ± 0.04) than the trifocal group (0.13 ± 0.06 and 0.11 ± 0.07) ( P = .02 and .01). Defocus curves showed that visual acuity was better with the EDOF IOL for vergences at 0.00, -0.50, and -1.00 and better with the trifocal IOL for vergences at -2.50, -3.00, -3.50, and -4.00. Contrast sensitivity scores were similar with both IOLs ( P = .12). The overall mean QoL scores were lower in the EDOF group, indicating a better QoL ( P = .04). The QoV was better in the EDOF group with significantly less glare, halos, and blurry vision ( P < .01). The EDOF IOL performed better at distance, and the trifocal IOL performed better at near. Overall QoL and quality of vision were better with the EDOF IOL.

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia.

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia.

Visual satisfaction and spectacle independence with monofocal intraocular lens with enhanced intermediate vision and trifocal intraocular lenses in the prepresbyopic age group patients with cataracts.

This aims to study visual satisfaction and spectacle independence in prepresbyopic age patients with cataracts after the implantation of either monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) with enhanced intermediate vision or trifocal IOL. Private practice. This prospective, observational case study was conducted on patients in the prepresbyopic age group with cataracts. Patients were allocated to one of the two groups. Thirteen patients (26 eyes) received monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate vision (intermediate vision group), and 12 patients (24 eyes) received diffractive multifocal IOLs (trifocal group). Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity, Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) values, defocus curves, and contrast sensitivities (CS) of the two groups were compared 3 months' postsurgery. Their spectacle independence and visual satisfaction were also assessed. The study patients were aged 35-45 years and comprised 14 males and 11 females. No significant difference was observed in UDVA (intermediate vision group: 0.02 ± 0.01, trifocal group: 0.02 ± 0.01; P = 0.22) and UIVA (intermediate vision group: 0.20 ± 0.10, trifocal group: 0.19 ± 0.10; P = 0.12). However, a statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of UNVA (intermediate vision group: 0.32 ± 0.10, trifocal group: 0.80 ± 0.10; P = 0.01). The mean CS in monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate vision and trifocal groups were 1.577 ± 0.3 and 1.550 ± 0.2, respectively (P = 0.40). None of the patients experienced photic phenomena. In total, 10 of 13 patients in the monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate vision group required spectacle correction for near visual acuity in the range of +1.00 to +2.00 D. This study found that there was no significant difference in distance and intermediate vision between the two groups. However, the trifocal group had better uncorrected near vision compared to the monofocal group that had enhanced intermediate vision. The conclusion is that using trifocal IOLs for both eyes provided complete independence from wearing glasses. In addition, no visual disturbances were observed after implanting the new-generation trifocal IOLs.

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.

Comparative analysis of visual quality between unilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens.

To compare visual quality after unilateral cataract surgery with implantation of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL. The prospective nonrandom, comparative study consisted of 60 eyes of 60 patients suffering unilateral cataract surgery with implantation of two different IOLs: AT LISA tri 839MP (30 eyes; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany) and LS-313 MF30 (30 eyes; Oculentis GmbH, Germany). Visual acuity, refractive outcome, contrast sensitivity, defocus curves, quality of vision, and optical phenomena were evaluated at 3mo postoperatively. There were no statistical differences between groups in uncorrected distance visual acuity (P=0.13) and uncorrected near visual acuity (P=0.54). In contrast, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity was better in trifocal group compared to the refractive multifocal group (P=0.02). No significant statistical between-group difference was detected in cylinder (P=0.43). Compared to trifocal group, spherical refraction and spherical equivalent in refractive multi focal group were more myopic (P<0.01). Under photopic conditions, no significant statistical differences were found between groups in contrast sensitivity at 3 and 6 cycles per degree (cpd). The refractive multifocal group performed better at 12 and 18 cpd than the trifocal group (P=0.01, P=0.034, respectively). The questionnaires of quality of vision and optical phenomena showed no differences between groups. Trifocal IOL is superior to refractive multifocal IOL in intermediate visual acuity. Rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL is more myopic in automated refraction and significantly better for the photopic contrast sensitivity at high frequency.

Patient Satisfaction and Visual Function Following Implantation of Trifocal or Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses.

PurposeTo compare the trifocal TFNT00 and extended depth-of-focus (EDF) ZXR00 intraocular lenses (IOLs) with respect to overall satisfaction with near and distance vision, visual acuity, dysphotopsia symptoms, spectacle dependence, and mesopic best corrected contrast sensitivity (MBCCS).Materials and MethodsThis non-randomized, retrospective, single-centre, comparative study took place at the Kensington Eye Institute in Toronto, Canada. Subjects implanted with either the TFNT00 IOL (n = 11) or ZXR00 IOL (n = 13) were assessed up to 4 years post operatively. Overall satisfaction with distance and near vision, corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected visual acuity at distance, intermediate (60 cm) and near (40 cm) (UNVA), dysphotopsia symptoms, spectacle dependence and monocular MBCCS were evaluated.ResultsForty-eight eyes of 24 subjects (mean age 68 years, 54% female) were assessed. There was no difference in overall satisfaction; both groups had a median score of 10/10 for overall distance vision, and 7/10 and 8/10 for near vision for EDF and trifocal, respectively. MBCCS at the higher spatial frequencies was significantly better with the ZXR00 IOL. Potentially clinically relevant but not statistically significant differences were found; the trifocal group (vs the EDF group) had better binocular UNVA (20/24 vs 20/32) and less spectacle dependence at least some of the time (54% vs 85%).ConclusionThe ZXR00 may be preferred for those who want optimal contrast sensitivity in dim lighting. Consistent with previous studies, the TFNT00 trifocal IOL may be a better choice for those who want to optimize UNVA. More studies in North America are required to further investigate spectacle dependence.

One-year post-operative comparison of visual function and patient satisfaction with trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses.

To evaluate visual performance with trifocal and extended depth of focus IOL at 1 year post-operatively. BMI Southend Hospital. Cohort study. An age-matched cohort of forty subjects bilaterally implanted with the AT LISA 839MP trifocal IOL (20 patients, 40 eyes) and the Tecnis Symfony extended depth of focus IOL (20 patients, 40 eyes) were assessed at 3-6 months and 12-18 months post-operatively. Primary outcome measures were distance (6 m), intermediate (70 cm), near visual acuity (40 cm), and analysis of defocus profiles. Secondary outcomes included contrast sensitivity, Radner reading performance, quality of vision and assessment of halos. Distance visual acuity (VA) and defocus areas were similar (p = 0.07). No significant difference in intermediate VA was noted but the intermediate area of focus was greater in the EDoF (0.31 ± 0.12 LogMAR*m-1) compared to the trifocal (0.22 ± 0.08LogMAR*m-1) (p = 0.02). However, all near metrics were significantly better in the trifocal group. 80% of trifocal subjects were spectacle independent compared to 50% EDoF subjects. Quality of vision questionnaire found no significant differences between groups, however halo scores were greater at 3-6 months in the trifocal group (p < 0.01) but no differences were noted at 12-18 months. Near vision is significantly better for the trifocal, thus greater levels of spectacle independence. The range of intermediate vision was greater for the EDoF but no difference in intermediate VA. In the early period, differences in contrast sensitivity and halo size/intensity were noted, however, by one-year these measures were not significantly different.

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

To compare the visual and refractive outcomes of bifocal toric and trifocal toric intraocular lenses (IOL) in patients with moderate to high myopia at 12months after implantation. 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 26.5mm 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. For uncorrected- and corrected distance intermediate VA, the trifocal group showed significantly better VA at 1, 3, 6, and 12months 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. 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.

Comparison of trifocal or hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes following implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or a hybrid multifocal-extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL in cataract or refractive lens exchange surgeries. We examined 13 comparative studies with bilateral implantation of trifocal (898 eyes) or hybrid multifocal-EDOF (624 eyes) IOLs published through 1 March 2020. Better uncorrected and corrected near visual acuity (VA) were observed in the trifocal group (MD: − 0.143, 95% CI: − 0.192 to − 0.010, P < 0.001 and MD: − 0.149, 95% CI: − 0.217 to − 0.082, P < 0.001, respectively), while the hybrid multifocal-EDOF group presented better uncorrected intermediate VA (MD: 0.055, 95% CI: 0.016 to 0.093, P = 0.005). Trifocal IOLs were more likely to achieve spectacle independence at near distance (RR: 1.103, 95% CI: 1.036 to 1.152, P = 0.002). The halo photic effect was generated more frequently by the trifocal IOLs (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 1.025 to 1.696, P = 0.031). Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded comparable results between groups. Trifocal IOLs demonstrated better performance at near distance but apparently led to more photic disturbances. Our findings provided the most up-to-date and comprehensive evidence by comparing the benefits of advanced IOLs in clinical practice.

Visual Acuity, Quality of Vision, and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation with a Trifocal or Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens.

PurposeTo evaluate the visual acuity, quality of vision and patient reported outcomes for patients that were either bilaterally implanted with a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) or an extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL.DesignSingle site, prospective, non-interventional, masked, two-arm comparative study.MethodsSubjects who had prior uncomplicated cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of one of the lenses above were evaluated. Subjects in each group were assessed during a single visit. The uncorrected and best distance-corrected binocular near (40 cm), intermediate (60 cm), and distance visual acuity (VA) were measured, along with a spectacle independence questionnaire, a quality of vision questionnaire and contrast sensitivity measured in both mesopic and photopic conditions.ResultsThe study included 23 EDOF and 25 trifocal subjects. Binocular Uncorrected VAs were similar at distance and intermediate, but about 1.5 lines better at near with the trifocal (p < 0.001). Binocular best corrected distance – VA was significantly better with the EDOF lens (0.5 lines, p < 0.001), though the mean VA was better than 20/20 in both groups. Distance-corrected intermediate and near VA were significantly better with the trifocal IOL (1 line and 1.5 lines respectively, p < 0.001). Significantly more trifocal subjects had 20/25 or better VA at all three test distances (64% vs 4%, p<0.001). Patient reported spectacle independence was significantly higher in the trifocal group, driven primarily by differences in near vision. Mesopic and photopic binocular contrast sensitivity, satisfaction and subjective quality of vision scores were similar between groups.ConclusionThe trifocal IOL provided significantly better near vision (1.5 lines) with slightly worse distance vision (0.5 lines), while providing similar contrast sensitivity and visual quality. It may be the preferred choice for patients desiring more spectacle independence.

A Comparative Evaluation of Diffractive Trifocal and New Refractive/Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses for Refractive Lens Exchange

ABSTRACT Purpose To evaluate and compare the visual performance and quality of life (QOL) associated with refractive/extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) and diffractive trifocal IOLs in refractive lens exchange patients. Materials and methods This was a comparative interventional study of patients undergoing implantation of Lucidis (Swiss Advanced Vision, SAV‑IOL SA, Neuchâtel, Switzerland) or AT LISA tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) IOLs. Near, intermediate, and distance best corrected and uncorrected visual acuities were collected at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. The vision-related QOL was evaluated 1 and 3 months after surgery, using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-14 (VF-14 QOL questionnaire). Results A total of 74 patients underwent refractive lens exchange and IOL implantation, with 38 patients in the EDOF group and 36 in the trifocal group. Among all visual acuities, uncorrected near visual acuity was statistically significantly better with the Lucidis IOL at the first month (p = .02) and diminished at the third-month visit (p = .16). When we compared the VF-14 QOL questionnaire scores, reading small print, reading a newspaper or book, and driving at night were statistically significantly better in the Lucidis group at the first month (p = .00, for each). That difference persisted only in driving at night at the third-month visit (p = .04). Reading small print, driving at night, and doing fine handwork were the most difficult tasks in the AT LISA group at the first month, and only driving at night remained so at the third-month visit. Conclusions The refractive results and visual outcomes at all distances of EDOF and trifocal IOLs were highly satisfactory. However, the EDOF design in the Lucidis IOL achieves lower rates of glare in the early period after refractive lens exchange.

Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses

This study compared the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction following implantation of the Mix-and-Match bifocal IOLs (+ 2.75 D and + 3.25 D add power Tecnis Multifocal Model), EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony IOL), and Trifocal IOL (FineVision PodFT, PhysIOL). All outcomes were compared among the three groups. The manifest refraction indicated that the EDOF group had significantly higher myopic spherical equivalent values than did the others. In the terms of visual acuity, there were no significant differences in far or intermediate visual acuity among the three groups. Only in near (33 cm), the EDOF group had significantly worse binocular visual acuity than did the Trifocal group (p = 0.002). Regarding to defocus curve, the Trifocal group had better defocus curves at near distances (− 2.0 to − 3.5 D; p = 0.001 vs. EDOF) than did the other two groups. In contrast sensitivity test, the EDOF group had relatively lower value than did the other two groups. In reading speed, only at 0.3 logMAR (6.5-point font), Mix-and-Match group had a significantly higher reading speed than did the other two groups (p = < 0.001 vs. EDOF, p = 0.007 vs. Trifocal). also Mix-and-Match group showed significantly fewer visual artifacts. There were no differences between the three groups in terms of patient satisfaction.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04019691.

Comparative Evaluation of Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens and an Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens.

To compare visual outcomes and clinical performance of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). This prospective, consecutive, nonrandomized, comparative study of 6-month duration included assessment of 160 eyes of 80 patients (40 patients in each group). The patients had bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of a trifocal (FineVision Micro F; PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL) in both eyes. Ophthalmological evaluation included measurement of monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance VA (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate VA (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA), uncorrected near VA (UNVA) and distance-corrected near VA (DCNVA). Analysis of point-spread function and modulation transfer function was also performed postoperatively, and quality of vision and spectacle-dependence questionnaires were assessed. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in monocular UDVA (P=0.65), CDVA (P=0.82), and binocular UDVA (P=0.81). The monocular UIVA, monocular DCIVA, and binocular UIVA were also comparable among the two groups (P=0.70, 0.74, and 0.81, respectively). Monocular UNVA, DCNVA, and binocular UNVA were statistically and significantly better for the trifocal group than for the EDOF (P=0.01, P=0.009, and P=0.001, respectively). There were no differences in visual symptoms and quality among groups. Trifocal IOL had a clear advantage over EDOF IOLs in near VA, while both IOLs showed excellent performance in distance and intermediate VA. Both IOLs provided high percentage of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction with minimal level of disturbing photic phenomena.