Comparison of a panfocal and trifocal diffractive intraocular lens after femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery.

PURPOSE To compare the visual outcomes of 2 diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs), a panfocal model and a trifocal model, after femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery. SETTING Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN Prospective comparative case series. METHODS This study comprised patients who had bilateral implantation of a Panoptix (panfocal) or AT LISA (trifocal) IOL. Exclusion criteria were previous ocular surgery, corneal astigmatism greater than 1.50 diopters, ocular pathology, and corneal abnormalities. Postoperative examinations included visual acuity at 4 m, 40 cm, 60 cm (panfocal), and 80 cm (trifocal); monocular distance-corrected defocus testing; and contrast sensitivity. A quality-of-vision questionnaire was also administered. RESULTS The study comprised 80 patients. There was no significant difference in visual acuity (>0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) at any distance between the 2 IOLs (P > .05). The defocus curve of the panfocal IOL (0.01 logMAR) showed significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm compared with the trifocal IOL (0.16 logMAR) (P < .001). There was no significant between-group difference in the defocus curve at other distances (P > .05). The contrast sensitivity under photopic, mesopic, and mesopic conditions with glare was similar between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS Both IOLs provided excellent distance, intermediate, and near vision. The lenses appear to be equally good options for patients with intermediate vision needs at their preferred foci, while the panfocal IOL might be better for patients with closer vision requirements at 60 cm compared to the trifocal IOL at 80 cm. Both yielded high spectacle independence with comparable contrast sensitivity and high patient satisfaction, despite some optical phenomena.

[1]  E. Barraquer,et al.  Evaluation of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens , 2016, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[2]  C. McAlinden,et al.  Visual and refractive outcomes following implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens , 2017, Eye and Vision.

[3]  B. Lege,et al.  Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis , 2000, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[4]  Evolution of visual performance in 250 eyes implanted with the Tecnis ZM900 multifocal IOL. , 2009 .

[5]  W. Hida,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 , 2017, Clinical ophthalmology.

[6]  S. Rizzo,et al.  Visual performance, reading ability and patient satisfaction after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens , 2017, Clinical ophthalmology.

[7]  Thomas Kohnen,et al.  Effect of intraocular lens asphericity on quality of vision after cataract removal: an intraindividual comparison. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[8]  J C Javitt,et al.  Outcomes of cataract extraction with multifocal intraocular lens implantation: functional status and quality of life. , 1997, Ophthalmology.

[9]  T. Kohnen,et al.  Visual function after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses with a +3.0 D addition , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[10]  P. Szurman,et al.  Impact of personality characteristics on patient satisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation: results from the "happy patient study". , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[11]  R. Hays,et al.  Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. , 2001 .

[12]  T. Berendschot,et al.  Effect of active evaluation on the detection of negative dysphotopsia after sequential cataract surgery: discrepancy between incidences of unsolicited and solicited complaints , 2018, Acta ophthalmologica.

[13]  Damien Gatinel,et al.  Comparison of bifocal and trifocal diffractive and refractive intraocular lenses using an optical bench , 2013, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[14]  R. Aggarwal,et al.  Clinical Outcomes with a New Trifocal Intraocular Lens , 2014, European journal of ophthalmology.

[15]  I. Contreras,et al.  Short term visual outcomes of a new trifocal intraocular lens , 2017, BMC Ophthalmology.

[16]  J. Alfonso,et al.  Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  F. Goes Refractive lens exchange with the diffractive multifocal Tecnis ZM900 intraocular lens. , 2008, Journal of refractive surgery.

[18]  Satish S. Modi,et al.  Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power: Randomized multicenter clinical study , 2009, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  T. Kohnen First implantation of a diffractive quadrafocal (trifocal) intraocular lens. , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[20]  Warren E Hill,et al.  Optical bench performance of AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR®, AT LISA® tri, and FineVision® intraocular lenses , 2014, Clinical ophthalmology.

[21]  J. Vryghem,et al.  Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens , 2013, Clinical ophthalmology.

[22]  F L Ferris,et al.  Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: Guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. , 1996, Ophthalmology.

[23]  Béatrice Cochener,et al.  Clinical Ophthalmology Dovepress Comparison of Outcomes with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: a Meta-analysis , 2022 .

[24]  R. Potvin,et al.  Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs , 2017, Clinical ophthalmology.

[25]  Myoung Choi,et al.  Optical bench performance of a novel trifocal intraocular lens compared with a multifocal intraocular lens , 2016, Clinical ophthalmology.

[26]  Michael Bach,et al.  Measuring Contrast Sensitivity Under Different Lighting Conditions: Comparison of Three Tests , 2006, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[27]  R. Potvin,et al.  Comparison of visual outcomes and subjective visual quality after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of apodized diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses , 2016, Clinical ophthalmology.

[28]  T. Kohnen,et al.  Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation to Treat Visual Demands in Various Distances Following Lens Removal. , 2016, American journal of ophthalmology.

[29]  A. Scialdone,et al.  Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: Trifocal versus extended range of vision. , 2017, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[30]  E. Marques,et al.  Comparison of visual outcomes of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[31]  T. Kohnen,et al.  Visual Performance of a Quadrifocal (Trifocal) Intraocular Lens Following Removal of the Crystalline Lens. , 2017, American journal of ophthalmology.

[32]  D. Elbourne,et al.  Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects☆ , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[33]  D. Piñero,et al.  Implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: One‐year follow‐up , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[34]  D. Piñero,et al.  Comparative analysis of the visual performance after cataract surgery with implantation of a bifocal or trifocal diffractive IOL. , 2014, Journal of refractive surgery.

[35]  J. Alió,et al.  Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: Neuroadaptation , 2019, Essentials in Ophthalmology.