Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia

Cruz, Diego Zamora-de La; Bartlett, John; Gutiérrez, Mario; Ng, Sueko M

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012648.pub3

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding binocular UIVA and CIVA, a Cochrane database evaluation from 2020 found that trifocal IOLs implantation resulted in better UIVA at one year, without a significant advantage for uncorrected near and distance vision [ 59 ]. A subsequent 2023 evaluation, expanded in patient age range, confirmed these findings [ 10 ]. Additionally, EDOF IOLs, with an achromatic diffractive surface provide a low add foci, extending the range of vision from distance through intermediate, a study with a three-month follow-up, found EDOF IOLs to be a well-tolerated option for correcting far and intermediate vision [ 60 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…As a result, the utilization of high-quality IOLs to address pseudo presbyopia has emerged as a significant subject in contemporary cataract surgery practices [ 7 ]. Beyond standard monofocal IOLs, current clinical practice often involves multifocal IOLs (bifocal and trifocal), EDOF IOLs, and enhanced monofocal IOLs [ 8 – 10 ]. While standard monofocal IOLs focus light at a single predetermined distance, necessitating additional refractive correction for varying distances [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Li,

Sun,

Zhang

et al. 2024

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the efficacy and safety of various intraocular lenses (IOLs), including standard monofocal, bifocal, trifocal, extended depth of focus (EDOF), and enhanced monofocal IOLs, post-cataract surgery through a network meta-analysis. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from the past 5 years. Parameters such as binocular visual acuities, spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity (CS), and optical quality were used to evaluate efficacy and safety. Data from the selected studies were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 17.0 software. Results Twenty-eight Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comprising 2465 subjects were included. Trifocal IOLs exhibited superior uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) compared to monofocal IOLs (MD: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22). Both trifocal (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOLs group MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.06) and EDOF IOLs (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.17, -0.09) showed better uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) than monofocal IOLs. Trifocal IOLs ranked highest in spectacle independence at various distances (AT LISAtri 839MP group: SUCRA 97.5% for distance, 80.7% for intermediate; AcrySof IQ PanOptix group: SUCRA 83.0% for near). Conclusions For cataract patients who want to treat presbyopia, trifocal IOLs demonstrated better visual acuity and spectacle independence at near distances. Different types of trifocal IOL characteristics differ. EDOF and enhanced monofocal IOLs have improved visual quality at intermediate distances.Therefore, It is very important to select the appropriate IOLs based on the lens characteristics and patient needs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Li,

Sun,

Zhang

et al. 2024

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the advancements in refractive cataract surgery and the widespread adoption of presbyopia-correcting IOLs [ 1 ], patients with cataracts now have a broader range of options available. These options promise to provide spectacle independence across various distances, including far, intermediate, and near vision [ 2 , 3 ]. Various presbyopia-correcting IOLs, such as multifocal IOLs and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses(EDOF IOLs), are available to fulfill visual needs at different distances [ 4 , 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extended depth of focus IOL in eyes with different axial myopia and targeted refraction

Wang,

Liu,

Chen

et al. 2024

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the objective visual outcomes following implantation of extended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF IOL) in individuals with varying axial lengths (AL) and targeted refraction. Methods This retrospective study comprised age-matched eyes that underwent implantation of the EDOF IOL. Eyes were categorized based on AL into groups: control group with AL < 26 mm; high myopia group with AL ≥ 26 mm. Each group was then subdivided based on postoperative spherical equivalent (SE). Follow-up at three months included assessment of uncorrected visual acuity at different distances, contrast sensitivity (CS), refractive outcomes, and spectacle independence. Results Overall, this study included 100 eyes from 100 patients, comprising 50 males (50.00%) and 50 females (50.00%), with 20 eyes in each group. In the control group, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 5 and 3 m (m) in the − 1.50 to -0.75 group was inferior to that of the − 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.004). Conversely, the uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 33 cm in the − 1.50 to -0.75 group was superior to that of the − 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.005). Within the high myopia group, the UDVA at 5 and 3 m in the − 2.25 to -1.50 group was worse than in the − 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.009 and 0.008, respectively). However, the UNVA at 33 cm in the − 2.25 to -1.50 group was better than in the − 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.020). No significant differences were observed among the groups for corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (P > 0.05). Additionally, in the high myopia group, the CS of the − 2.25 to -1.50 group was lower compared to that of the − 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.017). Among high myopia patients, 90.00% with refraction ranging from − 1.50 to -0.75 reported achieving overall spectacle independence. Conclusions Implantation of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses (IOLs) yields satisfactory visual and refractive outcomes in eyes with axial myopia. Among high myopia patients, a refraction ranging from − 1.50 to -0.75 diopters achieves superior visual quality compared to other postoperative myopic diopters.

show abstract

“…The introduction of premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) has played a major role in this evolution over the past decade. In addition to the tried and tested monofocal IOL, multifocal, toric and extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs have enabled surgeons cater to the individual visual needs of their patients [2][3][4]. Ocular biometry has also improved significantly from ultrasound technology to optical methods using partial coherence interferometry, optical low-coherence reflectometry and more recently, swept-source OCT-based machines that are accurate even in dense cataracts [5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Target Refraction with Optical Vs. Immersion Biometry with Ladi Adjustment using Barrett Universal II Formula after Phacoemulsification with Premium IOLs

Ladi,

Dhamankar,

Chavan

et al. 2024

J Opht Res Rev Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The Barrett’s formula requires optical biometry inputs. The Ladi adjustment was designed to overcome this and use ultrasound (US) axial length (AXL) inputs into Barrett’s universal II formula. We compared the residual refractive error (RRE) with optical vs. ultrasound biometry with Ladi adjustment following phacoemulsification when all IOL powers were calculated using Barrett’s formula. Study Design: Prospective, randomised, double blinded study Methods: All adults undergoing routine phacoemulsification were recruited. The keratometry and AXL were randomly measured using either the IOL master 500 (IM500) or a combination of US biometry and Sirius topography. For the US measurements, 200 microns was added to the AXL (Ladi adjustment) and values were entered in the online Barrett’s calculator. The RRE (spherical equivalent – target refraction) was determined at 6 months. Results: We included 200 eyes of which 100 had IOL-power calculation using the IM500 and 100 using the Ladi adjustment of the US. The groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. The RRE was comparable in the two groups (-0.09+0.27D in US vs. -0.08+0.23D in IM500, p=0.90). The RRE was slightly higher in eyes with AXL>25mm (n=18 eyes, -0.21+0.33D in US vs. -0.07+0.17D in IM500), though this was not statistically significant (p=0.27). The preop BCVA (β= 0.06D, 95%CI= -0.5 to 0.13D, p=0.07) was the only factor marginally influencing RRE. Conclusion: The US biometry with the Ladi adjustment was as accurate as the IM500 and can be reliably used with the Barrett’s formula for IOL power calculations. Caution should be maintained at extremes of AXL.

show abstract

Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia

Abstract: Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses a er cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia.

Cited by 11 publications

References 64 publications

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

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

Extended depth of focus IOL in eyes with different axial myopia and targeted refraction

Comparison of Target Refraction with Optical Vs. Immersion Biometry with Ladi Adjustment using Barrett Universal II Formula after Phacoemulsification with Premium IOLs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About