Comparative Efficacy Between Trifocal and Bifocal Intraocular Lens Among Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhang, Ziran; Jiang, Haiyang; Zhou, Huixin; Zhou, Fang

doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.647268

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 2021 meta-analysis [5] comparing trifocal and bifocal IOLs was consistent with existing literature, showing that trifocal IOLs offer similar distance and near vision, and superior intermediate vision, compared to bifocals. It remains uncertain whether contrast sensitivity differs significantly between trifocal and bifocal designs, though most authors consider the loss of contrast sensitivity in both groups to be minor [6].…”

Section: Multifocal Intraocular Lensessupporting

confidence: 79%

Outcomes and predictive factors in multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation

De la Paz,

Tsai

2023

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review Options for addressing presbyopia with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have become more varied and sophisticated. We reviewed recent literature on multifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs in order to provide insight on their respective advantages, with emphasis on the visual outcomes of each design. Recent findings Increased patient age, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) abnormalities, abnormal optical axis measurements, and better preoperative visual acuity have been implicated as predictors of worse postoperative vision or visual quality in multifocal IOLs. Despite differences in objective outcomes, patient-reported outcomes such as satisfaction are consistently similar between multifocal and EDOF IOLs. EDOFs may have slightly lower rates of spectacle independence than trifocals, but there is more support for their use in the setting of with other ocular conditions. Summary Multifocal and EDOF IOLs are both viable options for patients who wish to preserve near vision. Given their similar objective performance in many aspects, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on their expectations and visual requirements is critical to postoperative satisfaction. Evidence for advanced technology IOL implantation in pediatric patients remains inconclusive.

show abstract

Section: Multifocal Intraocular Lensessupporting

confidence: 79%

Outcomes and predictive factors in multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation

De la Paz,

Tsai

2023

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After splitting the diffractive MIOLs into bifocal and trifocal IOLs, the trifocal IOLs showed an improvement in UDVA when compared to bifocal IOLs. However, no significant differences were identified between trifocal and bifocal IOLs for distant VA in patients without previous corneal refractive surgery ( 24 ). Thus, further studies are required to demonstrated this clearly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Implantation in Eyes After Corneal Refractive Laser Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo assess the efficacy, safety, and predictability of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract patients with previous corneal refractive surgery.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs implantation in cataract surgery after laser refractive surgery. Outcomes were efficacy, safety and predictability parameters.ResultsThe authors identified 13 studies, involving a total of 128 patients and 445 eyes. Presbyopia-correcting IOLs were effective at improving distance, intermediate and near visual acuity aftercataract surgery. The proportion of post-laser surgery eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) ≥ 20/25 was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.90] and the pooled rates of spectacle independence at near, intermediate, and far distances were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.00) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.94) respectively. The percentage of participants who suffered from halos and glare was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.64) and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.16-0.60), respectively. The predictability had a percentage of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D) and ±1.0 D from the targeted spherical equivalent.ConclusionsPresbyopia-correcting IOLs provide satisfactory results in terms of efficacy, safety and predictability in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery, but have a higher risk of photopic side effects such as halos and glare.

show abstract

“…Trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to provide three and two focal points, respectively. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients implanted with trifocal IOLs may achieve better intermediate visual acuity (VA), and comparable distance and near VA than bifocal IOLs ( de Silva et al, 2016 ; Shen et al, 2017 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ). Pre-existing corneal and residual astigmatism are important factors limiting the application of multifocal IOLs ( Woodward et al, 2009 ; de Vries et al, 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Li,

Jiang

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate the dynamic visual acuity (DVA) after implantation of toric bifocal or trifocal intraocular lens in age-related cataract patients.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThree 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).ConclusionToric trifocal IOL provides better static intermediate visual acuity, and toric bifocal IOL implantation provides better distance dynamic visual acuity at high speed.

show abstract

Comparative Efficacy Between Trifocal and Bifocal Intraocular Lens Among Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 35 publications

Outcomes and predictive factors in multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation

Outcomes and predictive factors in multifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lens implantation

Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Implantation in Eyes After Corneal Refractive Laser Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About