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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

visual acuity optotypes interactive computer program contrast sensitivity trifocal intraocular lens multifocal intraocular lens cataract surgery.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mencucci

Favuzza

Caporossi

, et al. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, Reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018; 256: 1913–1922.

Belikova

Borzykh

. Results of trifocal intraocular lenses implantation in patients with cataract and presbyopia. Oftalʹmologiâ 2018; 15: 248–255.

Ruiz-Mesa

Abengózar-Vela

Ruiz-Santos

. A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 2018; 28: 182–187.

Martins Cortez Vilar

Hida

Medeiros

, et al. Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of two bifocal intraocular lenses. OPTH 2017; 11: 1393–1397.

de Medeiros

de Araujo Rolim

Motta

AFP

, et al. Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens. OPTH 2017; 11: 1911–1916.

Carson

Alexander

, et al. Optical bench performance of 3 trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016; 42: 1361–1367.

Středová

Řeháková

Veliká

, et al. Evaluation of retinal light scattering, visual acuity, refraction and subjective satisfaction in patients after acrysof IQ PanOptix intraocular lens implantation. Cesk Slov Oftalmol 2020; 75: 316–322.

Sudhir

Dey

Bhattacharrya

, et al. Acrysof IQ PanOptix intraocular Lens versus extended depth of focus intraocular Lens and trifocal intraocular Lens: a clinical overview. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2019; 8: 335–349.

Farvardin

Johari

Attarzade

, et al. Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (Alcon Acrysof IQ® PanOptix) and extended depth of focus lens (Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 lens). Int Ophthalmol 2021; 41: 567–573.

10.

Song

Khoramnia

Son

H-S

, et al. Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL and mix-and-match implantation of a bifocal IOL and an extended depth of focus IOL. J Refract Surg 2020; 36: 528–535.

11.

Teshigawara

Meguro

Mizuki

. The effect of age, postoperative refraction, and Pre- and postoperative pupil size on halo size and intensity in eyes implanted with a trifocal or extended depth-of-focus Lens. Clin Ophthalmol 2021; 15: 4141–4152.

12.

Alio

D’Oria

Toto

, et al. Retinal image quality with multifocal, EDoF, and accommodative intraocular lenses as studied by pyramidal aberrometry. Eye Vis (Lond) 2021; 8: 37.

13.

Lapid-Gortzak

Bhatt

Sanchez

, et al. Multicenter visual outcomes comparison of 2 trifocal presbyopia-correcting IOLs: 6-month postoperative results. J Cataract Refract Surg 2020; 46: 1534–1542.

14.

Palomino-Bautista

Sánchez-Jean

Carmona-Gonzalez

, et al. Depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes implanted with different type of presbyopia-correcting IOLS. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 12081.

15.

Doroodgar

Niazi

Sanginabadi

, et al. Visual performance of four types of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses and a review of articles. Int J Ophthalmol 2021; 14: 356–365.

16.

Martínez de Carneros-Llorente

Martínez de Carneros

Martínez de Carneros-Llorente

, et al. Comparison of visual quality and subjective outcomes among 3 trifocal intraocular lenses and 1 bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2019; 45: 587–594.

17.

Serdiuk

Ustymenko

Fokina

, et al. Comparison of three different presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Rom J Ophthalmol 2020; 64: 364–379.

18.

Sezgin Asena

. Visual and refractive outcomes, spectacle independence, and visual disturbances after cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery: comparison of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2019; 45: 1539–1546.

19.

Taylor

. Applying new design principles to the construction of an illiterate E chart. Optom Vis Sci 1978; 55: 348–351.

20.

Rozhkova

Lebedev

Gracheva

, et al. Optimal optotype structure for monitoring visual acuity. Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences Section B Natural, Exact, and Applied Sciences 2017; 71: 327–338.

21.

Rozhkova

Malykh

. Present aspects of visiometry standardization. AEM 2017; 51: 5–16.

22.

Malyugin

Sobolev

Fomina

. Visual assessment performance after implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Fyodorov J Ophthalmic Surg 2017; 4: 6–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.25276/0235-4160-2017-4-6-14.

23.

Mandelblum

Fischer

Achiron

, et al. A simple Pre-operative nuclear classification score (SPONCS) for grading cataract hardness in clinical studies. J Clin Med 2020; 9: E3503.

24.

Steinberg

Tielsch

Schein

, et al. The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 630–638.

25.

Liberati

Altman

Tetzlaff

, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J 2009; 339: b2700–b2700.

26.

Böhm

Hemkeppler

Kohnen

. Self-rated quality of vision and optical phenomena intensity of diffractive presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: EDOF, trifocal versus panfocal. J Cataract Refract Surg 2022; 48(8): 877–886.

27.

Ying

G-S

Maguire

Glynn

, et al. Calculating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for correlated eye data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2020; 61: 29.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.02 MB

0.04 MB