<p>Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Large Population</p>

Abstract

Purpose: To review refractive, visual acuity, defocus curve and contrast sensitivity results after bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in a large population. Setting: One site in Santiago, Chile. Design: Single arm, non-randomized retrospective chart review. Methods: This was a single-arm retrospective chart review of clinical outcomes after bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL (Panoptix ®), both toric and non-toric versions. Binocular visual acuity at 4 m, 60 cm and 40 cm was tested. Other tests included refraction, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity, and defocus curve measurement. Results: The review included 500 eyes of 250 patients implanted with the trifocal IOL and 200 eyes of 100 patients implanted with the trifocal toric IOL, with no clinically significant differences between groups. Ninety-six percent of all eyes were within 0.50D of the intended spherical equivalent correction. In the toric group, 94% of eyes (187/200) had a residual refractive cylinder ≤0.50D, compared to 81% of eyes (406/500) in the non-toric group. Four out of five patients (80.6%, 282/350) had a binocular uncorrected VA of 0.1 logMAR (20/25) at all test distances. Mean defocus was 0.1 logMAR or better from vergences from 0.00 to −3.00 D (corresponding to vision from distance to about 33 cm). With a cutoff of 0.2 logMAR, 96% of patients had a range of vision 2.5 D or greater. Contrast sensitivity was similar between the toric and non-toric lenses, and similar to age-matched normal results. Conclusion: The non-toric and toric trifocal IOLs provided good distance, intermediate and near vision to patients, with a wide range of vision and good contrast sensitivity.

<p>Astigmatic Results of a Diffractive Trifocal Toric IOL Following Intraoperative Aberrometry Guidance</p>

“…Other causes for the differences observed in our study could be the length of follow-up and preoperative refraction. It is interesting to note that the results reported by Carreño et al 13 for percentage of eyes ≤0.25 D (66%) appear in between our results of BRA and PRA (45% and 90.5%, respectively). Mean postoperative cylinder after TTI with the Acrysof Panoptix IQ IOL has been reported previously between −0.21 and 0.28.…”

“…Mean postoperative cylinder after TTI with the Acrysof Panoptix IQ IOL has been reported previously between −0.21 and 0.28. 13,14,20,21 Our results with IA 0.07 ± 0.19 D fall close to the middle of this range, while the results of our back-calculations using preoperative planned power, 0.31 ± 0.33 D fall outside it. Postoperative MRSE in our study (0.01 ± 0.27 D) fell close to the middle of the range for previously published results (−0.07-0.12 D) 14,20,21 of TTI with the Acrysof Panoptix IQ IOL.…”

“…Our results appear as good or lower compared to previous reports of TTI with the Acrysof Panoptix IQ IOL. 13,14,20,21 Carreño et al 13 reported that approximately 66% and 94% of patients were ≤0.25 D and ≤0.5 D in their PRA, compared to 90.5% and 97.8% in our study. In both studies, the VERION and ORA systems were used.…”

“…A possible explanation for the difference in percentage of eyes that were ≤0.25 D is that the authors reported using FLACS in 53% of eyes, while our study used FLACS in 98.5% percent of eyes. However, Carreño et al 13 reported no significant differences between FLACS and standard surgery in their results. Other causes for the differences observed in our study could be the length of follow-up and preoperative refraction.…”

“…12 Studies have reported on refractive outcomes of the AcrySof ® PanOptix ® toric IOL. 13,14 However, to our knowledge, there are few studies that have compared outcomes after trifocal toric implantation with and without IA. The purpose of this study is to determine if IA improves astigmatic outcomes for trifocal toric IOL cases and to compare to conventional preoperative planning.…”