Comparing the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction among three types of multi-focal intraocular lenses

Abstract

This study compared the visual outcome, visual quality, and satisfaction following implantation of the Mix-and-Match bifocal IOLs (+ 2.75 D and + 3.25 D add power Tecnis Multifocal Model), EDOF IOL (Tecnis Symfony IOL), and Trifocal IOL (FineVision PodFT, PhysIOL). All outcomes were compared among the three groups. The manifest refraction indicated that the EDOF group had significantly higher myopic spherical equivalent values than did the others. In the terms of visual acuity, there were no significant differences in far or intermediate visual acuity among the three groups. Only in near (33 cm), the EDOF group had significantly worse binocular visual acuity than did the Trifocal group (p = 0.002). Regarding to defocus curve, the Trifocal group had better defocus curves at near distances (− 2.0 to − 3.5 D; p = 0.001 vs. EDOF) than did the other two groups. In contrast sensitivity test, the EDOF group had relatively lower value than did the other two groups. In reading speed, only at 0.3 logMAR (6.5-point font), Mix-and-Match group had a significantly higher reading speed than did the other two groups (p = < 0.001 vs. EDOF, p = 0.007 vs. Trifocal). also Mix-and-Match group showed significantly fewer visual artifacts. There were no differences between the three groups in terms of patient satisfaction. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04019691.

Visual acuity, defocus curve and patient satisfaction of a new hybrid EDOF-multifocal diffractive intraocular lens

“…The current study showed good distant, intermediate and near uncorrected visual acuity results that were comparable to the visual acuity outcomes of both multifocal and EDOF IOLs that were previously reported. 11,20,23–26 The UDVA result of the current study ( −0.01 ± 0.04 logMAR) was found comparable to the UDVA results of ZKB00 reported by Tarib et al 25 (0.14 ± 0.14 logMAR), Yang et al 26 ( −0.02 ± 0.10 logMAR) and Turhan et al 27 ( −0.05 ± 0.06 logMAR). The UDVA result of the current study appears to be in accordance with the UDVA result of EDOF IOL that was reported by Kohnen et al ( −0.02 ± 0.071 logMAR) and Concerto study group 28 (0.03 ± 0.09 logMAR).…”

Clinical Performance of Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) Intraocular Lenses – A Retrospective Comparative Study of Mini Well Ready and Symfony

“…Although we identified some studies to evaluate the subjective depth of focus of bifocal or trifocal IOLs, there is still insufficient research to investigate subjective the depth of focus in eyes with EDOF IOLs using defocus curves, so the results of those studies cannot be directly compared to ours. 13 , 16 Firstly, we adopted the blur tolerance criterion at 0.2 logMAR, other studies used more subjective criteria. Assessing the subjective depth of focus of AT LISA tri IOLs, Barisic reported the mean depth of focus of 2.59 D, having assumed the blur tolerance criterion of 20/30.…”

Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes of Mix-and-Match Implantation of an Extended Depth-of-Focus and a Diffractive Bifocal Intraocular Lens

“…14,15 However, other studies showed no significant differences in binocular UIVA between EDOF IOLs and trifocal IOLs. 2,13 In a mix-and-match bilateral implantation of EDOF IOLs (AT LARA 829 MP IOL, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) and trifocal IOLs (AT LISA tri 839 MP IOL, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) study, the results illustrated good unaided visual acuity for both intermediate and near distance. 16…”

“…14,15 However, other studies showed no significant differences in binocular UIVA between EDOF IOLs and trifocal IOLs. 2,13 In a mix-and-match bilateral implantation of EDOF IOLs (AT LARA 829 MP IOL, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) and trifocal IOLs (AT LISA tri 839 MP IOL, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) study, the results illustrated good unaided visual acuity for both intermediate and near distance. 16 This current study demonstrated that mix-and-match implantation of an EDOF-IOL in the dominant eye and a diffractive bifocal IOL in the nondominant eye exhibited excellent binocular visual acuities at all distances.…”