Clinical outcomes with a new design in multifocal intraocular lens: a pilot study

Alió, Jorge L.; Yébana, Pilar; Cantó, Mario; Plaza, Ana B.; Vega, Alfredo; Barrio, Jorge L. Alió del; Lugo, Francisco

doi:10.1186/s40662-020-00205-3

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our prospective study, 50% of patients reported being satis ed or very satis ed with the visual result, being able to perform between 70 and 80% of the intermediate vision tasks without glasses and between 40 and 70% of the near vision tasks vision without glasses. The results of our study are inferior to those of other publications of EDOF IOLs implanted in patients without ophthalmological comorbidities [42][43][44], and are more in line with the outcomes from Baartman et al [41]. In our retrospective study, 60% of patients reported being satis ed or very satis ed with the visual result and could comfortably perform between 60 and 80% of near vision activities without glasses.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Evaluation of Visual and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses in Patients Not Suitable for Multifocal Lenses

Álvarez-García

Fuente-García

Muñoz-Puyol

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the visual and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) who were not good candidates for multifocal IOL implantation Methods Retrospective analysis of data from 30 eyes (23 patients) undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of one of two EDOF IOLs (follow-up: 37.9 ± 16.2 months), and prospective observational study including 106 eyes (78 patients) implanted with one of 6 different EDOF models (follow-up: 8.0 ± 7.7 months). Patients recruited had one of the following conditions: monofocal IOL implanted in the fellow eye, previous corneal refractive surgery, mild and non-progressive maculopathy or glaucoma, age > 75 years, amblyopia, or previous vitrectomy. Results In the retrospective phase, significant improvements were found in uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA) and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) (p ≤ 0.013), with a non-significant trend to improvement in uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). A total of 90% of patients were completely to moderately satisfied with the outcome achieved. In the prospective phase, significant improvements were found in UDVA, CDVA, UNVA and CNVA (p ≤ 0.032), with a total of 85.5% of patients being completely to moderately satisfied (dissatisfaction 3.3%). In both phases, extreme difficulties were only reported by a limited percentage of patients for performing some near vision activities. Conclusions EDOF IOLs should be considered as a new therapeutic option in this type of patients, being a viable alternative to monofocal IOLs.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Evaluation of Visual and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses in Patients Not Suitable for Multifocal Lenses

Álvarez-García

Fuente-García

Muñoz-Puyol

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multifocal IOLs have demonstrated good postoperative vision at far and near distances, but a review of literature suggests that ZFR00V has an advantage over existing multifocal and trifocal IOLs with regard to intermediate visual acuity (up to ∼2 line difference at 60 cm) and near visual acuity (eg, 0.8-line difference over TFNT00 IOL under photopic and mesopic conditions at 33 cm). 3,4,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] In this study, ZFR00V improved binocular intermediate vision (UIVA) and near vision (UNVA and photopic and mesopic DCNVA), whereas the maintenance of far vision (CDVA) was similar to that observed with a monofocal ZCB00 IOL. Binocular DCNVA results under mesopic conditions in this study with ZFR00V (0.24) were similar to or better than DCNVA results from a previously published comparative analysis of TECNIS Symfony (0.30), PanOptix IQ (0.25), and AT LISA tri 839MP (0.27).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Clinical performance of a hybrid presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens in patients undergoing cataract surgery in a multicenter trial

Chang

Hu²,

Lehmann

et al. 2023

J Cataract Refract Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the clinical performance of TECNIS Synergy intraocular lens (IOL), model ZFR00V, vs TECNIS IOL, model ZCB00, in cataract patients. Setting: Multicenter clinical setting. Design: Prospective, randomized, subject/evaluator-masked clinical trial. Methods: Cataract patients aged ≥22 years were randomly assigned 1:1 to bilateral implantation with ZFR00V or ZCB00. Key end points at 6 months postsurgery included monocular and binocular visual acuities at 4 m, 66 cm, 33 cm, and/or 40 cm, binocular distance-corrected defocus testing, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. Results: 272 patients were implanted with ZFR00V (135) or ZCB00 (137). At 6 months, 83/131 (63.4%) ZFR00V patients demonstrated 20/25 or better combined monocular distance-corrected vision at far, intermediate, or near, compared with 5/130 (3.8%) ZCB00 patients. ZFR00V demonstrated excellent binocular uncorrected vision at intermediate (0.022 logMAR) and distance-corrected vision at 40 cm (0.047 logMAR). Strong ZFR00V performance persisted under mesopic conditions (0.244 logMAR or ∼20/32 Snellen), where improvement over ZCB00 with distance-corrected vision at near was 3.5 lines. ZFR00V provided a broad range of functional vision (20/32 or better) through −3.5 diopters of defocus (29 cm). Most ZFR00V patients reported no spectacle wear overall (93.1%) or at all 4 viewing distances combined (87.8%), and 55.7% qualified as completely spectacle independent. Relatively low proportions of ZFR00V patients reported being very/extremely bothered by halos (13.7%), starbursts (11.5%), or night glare (8.4%). The safety profile was similar between IOL groups. Conclusions: TECNIS Synergy ZFR00V demonstrated improved intermediate and near vision, increased range of vision, and greater spectacle independence vs TECNIS monofocal ZCB00.

show abstract

“…Secondary to the astigmatism assessment, Eom et al reported a binocular defocus curve for their patients [ 28 ]. Alió et al also evaluated the defocus curve of ten (Precizon 570 NVA) patients [ 29 ]. Despite differences in the intermediate VA level between the two studies, which may result from the small (10) study population analyzed by Alió's group, there are apparent similarities to the simulated VA in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spectral Effects and Range of Focus in a Multizonal-Refractive Intraocular Lens Compared with a Standard Trifocal Diffractive Design

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This study was performed to compare the optical performance of a multizonal presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) and a conventional trifocal model. Methods: The optical quality and simulated visual acuity (VA) of 570 Precizon Presbyopic NVA (OPHTEC BV) and AcrySof IQ PanOptix (Alcon) were compared. The Precizon features a refractive design consisting of alternating optical zones that converge the incident light into two principal foci and a transitional zone for intermediate vision. By contrast, the PanOptix applies a diffractive (non-apodized) profile to achieve trifocality. Simulated VA was derived from the modulation transfer function. Chromatic aberration effects were also studied. Results: The diffractive and multizonal-refractive lenses yielded comparable simulated VAs at far focus (0.00 logMAR). All curves showed a reduction in expected VA with an increase in negative defocus. At -1.0 D, the multizonal-refractive IOL's VA dropped by 0.05 logMAR, but for the diffractive model, it was one line (0.11 logMAR). The multizonal-refractive lens's VA prediction at the secondary peak was 0.03 logMAR-minimally better than the 0.06 log-MAR of the diffractive lens at -2.5 D. The refractive lens exhibited a 24% decrease in polychromatic optical quality due to material dispersion. The performance of PanOptix was more substantially affected, showing a 44% loss at 50 lp/mm at far, with minimal effects at other distances. Conclusion:The multizonal-refractive lens does not fall short of the established trifocal IOL, and it can be used to extend the visual range of pseudophakic patients. Although the multizonal-refractive lens has lower material dispersion, the diffractive model corrects chromatism beyond far focus.

show abstract

Clinical outcomes with a new design in multifocal intraocular lens: a pilot study

Cited by 14 publications

References 35 publications

Evaluation of Visual and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses in Patients Not Suitable for Multifocal Lenses

Evaluation of Visual and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Implantation of Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses in Patients Not Suitable for Multifocal Lenses

Clinical performance of a hybrid presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens in patients undergoing cataract surgery in a multicenter trial

Spectral Effects and Range of Focus in a Multizonal-Refractive Intraocular Lens Compared with a Standard Trifocal Diffractive Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About