Comparison of clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (AT LISA, Eyecryl SERT trifocal) versus extended depth of focus intraocular lens (Eyhance, Eyecryl SERT EDOF)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare four different types of intra ocular lenses (IOLs), namely, AT LISA, Eyecryl SERT trifocal, Eyhance, Eyecryl SERT extended depth of focus (EDOF) with respect to their clinical outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study in which patients who underwent surgery and one of the four types of IOL were implanted. Postoperative evaluation was recorded at one month, postoperatively. The monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (6 m), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) (60 cm), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (CIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) (40 cm), and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) were assessed postoperatively on post operative day 30, for all four IOL groups. Defocus curve and contrast sensitivity were also compared. Results: With regards to UDVA and CDVA, P value was not statistically significant. (P = 0.534 and 0.421, respectively). EDOF group of IOLs had statistically significant better UIVA and CIVA than trifocal IOL group. (P < 0.001, 0.012, <0.001) and EDOF group had statistically significant worse P value pertaining to UNVA and CNVA (P < 0.001, 0.070, <0.001, 0.190). Pertaining to contrast sensitivity, EDOF group had better contrast sensitivity than Trifocal IOL group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: All four IOLs compared in this study had good comparable distant visual acuity. Near visual acuity was better with AT LISA and Eyecryl SERT trifocal IOL while intermediate vision was better with Eyhance and Eyecryl SERT EDOF IOL. Contrast sensitivity was better in EDOF IOLs than in both trifocal IOLs.

Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopia-correcting cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The CS of both EDOF and FineVision POD F IOLs increased with frequency, and EDOF IOLs have better CS only at lower spatial frequencies, with no significant difference at higher spatial frequencies, in line with previous reports [ 67 , 68 ]. This aligns with the findings of an RCT related to a multifocal IOL reported by Gil, MÁ in 2022 [ 69 , 70 ]. Preethi Karuppiah’s report comparing trifocal and EDOF IOLs also indicated better CS in EDOF IOLs [ 70 ].…”

Positioning of enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses between conventional monofocal and extended depth of focus lenses: a scoping review

“…Twenty-four were excluded because none of the IOLs described in the context were included, and only two papers were excluded because of comorbidities or different study types from those described in the inclusion criteria. After the full text evaluation, three clinical studies were excluded since the inclusion criteria was not accomplished, [11][12][13] and one mixed was maintained (partly excluded) since the criteria was accomplished in the laboratory study context but not in the clinical [14]. During the search update in the moment of data extraction, three papers were included, two not indexed in the databases and found through snowballing techniques, [15,16] and 1 new after search update [17].…”

Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a New Enhanced Monofocal IOL and a Conventional Monofocal IOL

“… 17 Nevertheless, as anticipated for a monofocal IOL, the UNVA outcomes of Eyhance were always worse in direct comparison to lenses with a true multifocal design. 11 , 24 , 27 , 30 …”