Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes between hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lenses sharing the same optical design

Nagy, Zoltán Zsolt; Popper-Sachetti, Andrea; Kiss, Huba

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.11.034

Cited by 16 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, our findings are in line with the recently published outcomes of Nagy et al 9 This prospective study compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing cataract surgery and implantation of POD F in one eye and POD F GF in the contralateral eye. The authors reported that 6 months after surgery there was no statistically significant difference in monocular distance, intermediate and near visual acuities, or contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The authors reported that 6 months after surgery there was no statistically significant difference in monocular distance, intermediate and near visual acuities, or contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. 9 In the POD F GF group, mean logMAR monocular photopic UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA at 6 months was 0.00±0.07, −0.04±0.08, 0.04±0.09, and 0.04±0.07, respectively. The POD F group showed mean logMAR values of 0.03±0.12 (UDVA), −0.04±0.09 (CDVA), 0.06±0.09 (DCIVA), and 0.08±0.08 (DCNVA).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The goal of this current study was to compare visual and refractive outcomes between the hydrophobic trifocal POD F GF and the hydrophilic trifocal POD F IOL, and to investigate whether the newer POD F GF can achieve clinical outcomes comparable to its hydrophilic counterpart. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Although monocular clinical results have been previously reported, 9 to our knowledge, this is the first study reporting binocular clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after POD F GF IOL implantation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The FineVision POD F lens has repeatedly been shown in clinical trials to restore vision at various distances following cataract surgery, specifically intermediate and near vision. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] In the past, the FineVision optical design has also proven its effectiveness in numerous clinical studies with the hydrophilic Micro F IOL model (PhysIOL, Liége, Belgium). 13,14,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Unlike double-C-loop POD lenses, the Micro F IOL has a four-loop haptic design.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have shown that the POD F IOL offers a significant improvement in uncorrected visual acuity across all distances and high patient satisfaction. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] PhysIOL subsequently developed the POD F GF IOL, which retains the FineVision optic and the POD haptic design but differs in terms of the material as it is made from a hydrophobic acrylic glistening-free material called GFree. 15 Given the two materials differ in refractive properties, the Abbe number (POD F GF: 42; POD F: 58) and the refractive index (POD F GF: 1.52; POD F: 1.46), the thickness of the optics of the POD F and POD F GF IOL are very different.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

<p>Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials</p>

Poyales¹,

Pérez²,

López-Brea³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes in a prospective trial of cataract surgery patients bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with very similar optical designs but consisting of different IOL materials (hydrophobic and hydrophilic). Patients and Methods: Fifty-one patients (102 eyes) were randomized to receive trifocal IOLs bilaterally-FineVision POD F (hydrophilic) or FineVision POD F GF (hydrophobic) (both PhysIOL, Liége, Belgium). The follow-up period was 3 months. Outcome measurements included uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA), and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), refraction, negative dysphotopsia, optical quality of vision, contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, halometry (discrimination index), and patient-reported outcomes. Results: At the final study visit, mean (SD) values for binocular UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA (80 cm), and DCNVA (40 cm) were −0.01 (0.06), −0.04 (0.04), 0.09 (0.10), and 0.10 (0.09) logMAR, respectively, for POD F, and 0.01 (0.08), −0.03 (0.03), 0.08 (0.1), and 0.13 (0.11) respectively, for POD F GF. Defocus assessments showed a continuous curve with a functional range of visual acuity (≤0.15 logMAR) from ~30 cm to infinity in both groups. The discrimination index was >0.85 for all patients, and both groups showed similar contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. At 3 months, no patient reported negative dysphotopsia, and high satisfaction rates were observed. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between each lens when measured at 1 month and 3 months after implantation. This equally good clinical performance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal lenses allows the surgeon to choose the IOL material based on personal preferences or patients' needs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

<p>Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials</p>

Poyales¹,

Pérez²,

López-Brea³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the impact of a new visual rehabilitation program on neuroadaptation in patients implanted with trifocal intraocular lenses

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of a new visual training program for improving the visual function in patients implanted with trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods Randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial enrolling 60 subjects (age, 47–75 years) undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of trifocal diffractive IOL. Home-based active visual training was prescribed immediately after surgery to all of them (20 sessions, 30 min): 31 subjects using a serious game based on Gabor patches (study group) and 29 using a placebo software (placebo group). Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (CS), and perception of visual disturbances (QoV questionnaire) were evaluated before and after training. Likewise, in a small subgroup, resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) analysis was performed. Results No significant differences were found between groups in compliance time (p = 0.70). After training, only significant improvements in monocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity were found in the study group (p ≤ 0.01), although differences between groups did not reach statistical significance (p ≥ 0.11). Likewise, significantly better binocular far CS values were found in the study group for the spatial frequencies of 6 (p = 0.01) and 12 cpd (p = 0.03). More visual symptoms of the QoV questionnaire experienced a significant change in the level of bothersomeness in the study group. Rs-fMRI revealed the presence significant changes reflecting higher functional connectivity after the training with the serious game. Conclusions A 3-week visual training program based on the use of Gabor patches after bilateral implantation of trifocal diffractive IOLs may be beneficial for optimising the visual function, with neural changes associated suggesting an acceleration of neuroadaptation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04985097. Registered 02 August 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/(NCT04985097).

show abstract

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

Mori

Suzuki

Noguchi³

et al. 2022

Ophthalmol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes between hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lenses sharing the same optical design

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

<p>Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials</p>

<p>Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials</p>

Randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the impact of a new visual rehabilitation program on neuroadaptation in patients implanted with trifocal intraocular lenses

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About