Clinical Performance of a Hydrophobic Acrylic Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Japanese Population

Abstract

Introduction: In this study, clinical performance of a hydrophobic acrylic diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with double C-loop haptics was evaluated in Japanese cataract eyes. Methods: Twenty-three patients had bilateral cataract surgery with the implantation of a trifocal IOL with double C-loop haptics. Postoperative examinations at 6 months included assessing uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at 5 m, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. Binocular defocus, contrast sensitivity, spectacle independence, symptoms of photic phenomena and quality of vision (QOV) were also observed. Results: Twenty-three patients received 46 IOLs binocularly. Manifest refraction spherical equivalent was -0.227 ± 0.385 D (mean ± standard deviation) at 6 months postoperatively. Binocular UDVA, binocular UIVA and binocular UNVA were -0.101 ± 0.065, -0.021 ± 0.079 and 0.022 ± 0.095 logMAR units, respectively. Binocular CDVA, binocular DCIVA and binocular DCNVA were -0.151 ± 0.044, -0.042 ± 0.067 and -0.011 ± 0.080 logMAR, respectively. Binocular CDVA of 0.00 logMAR or better was obtained in the defocus from -3.0 D until ? 0.5 D. Only 8.7% of patients required the use of spectacles postoperatively. There were no symptoms of glare, halo and light disturbance in 78.3%, 56.5% and 69.6% of patients, respectively. QOV scores significantly improved postoperatively (P \ 0.0001). Conclusion:The hydrophobic acrylic trifocal IOL with double C-loop haptics provides good visual performance at all distances and produces high spectacle independence rate and patient satisfaction. Trial Registration Number: NCT04699266 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Refractive and Visual Outcomes Using a Trifocal, Diffractive, Hydrophobic Intraocular Lens in Japanese Eyes

“…Of note, one study 11 reported binocular rather than monocular mean values. At distance, our results were similar to those reported by other cohorts (a CDVA ranging from 0.01 to −0.07 logMAR), and specifically for Japanese eyes, we found slightly worse CDVA and DCIVA (at 80 cm) and better DCNVA than Mori et al 5 although the maximum difference was 0.14 logMAR at 80 cm (about 1 line of the chart). It is also worth noting that our mean axial length was 1.66 mm, which was longer than that of Mori et al (23.66 11 vs 24.71 mm) and therefore, the mean IOL power implanted was different between these two studies (17.37 vs 20.54 D 5 ).…”

“…It is also worth noting that our mean axial length was 1.66 mm, which was longer than that of Mori et al (23.66 11 vs 24.71 mm) and therefore, the mean IOL power implanted was different between these two studies (17.37 vs 20.54 D 5 ).…”

“… Kim et al 6 2022 Mix-and-match 212 [106] FineVision Triumf/FineVision HP Retrospective 6–10 weeks 57.5±5.8 (42 to 70) 21.1±2.00 (NR)* 23.64±0.79 (NR)* Monocular UDVA and CDVA, UNVA (40 cm), monocular and binocular defocus curves, and PROQ. Mori et al 5 2022 46 [23] Prospective 6 71.3±5.9 (56 to 82) 20.54±3.68 (10 to 26) 23.66±1.04 (22.15 to 26.68) Monocular and binocular UDVA, CDVA, UIVA and DCIVA (80 cm), UNVA and DCNVA (40 cm), binocular defocus curve, binocular photopic CS, and PROQ (VFQ-J11) Current 2024 45 [29] Retrospective 3 68.52±9.98 (33 to 80) 17.37±3.78 (10.50 to 24) 24.71±1.26 (23.01 to 27.39) Refraction, monocular UDVA, CDVA, UIVA and DCIVA (80 and 66 cm), and UNVA and DCNVA (40 cm). Notes : Values reported as the mean ± standard deviation (range).…”

“…In Table 6 , these results are compared with those from other studies in terms of the percentage of cumulative monocular visual acuity ≥ 20/16, ≥ 20/20, ≥ 20/25, and ≥ 20/32 obtained at far, intermediate (80, 70, and 66 cm), and near (40 and 35 cm) distances. Of note, a couple of studies 5 , 11 reported binocular rather than monocular cumulative percentages.…”

“…Of note, a couple of studies 5 , 11 reported binocular rather than monocular cumulative percentages.…”