Trifocal versus Bifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens Implantation after Cataract Surgery or Refractive Lens Exchange: a Meta-analysis

Yoon, Chang Ho; Shin, In-Soo; Kim, Mee Kum

doi:10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e275

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9 Summarizing the outcomes, which are presented in a meta-analysis of trifocal IOLs, mean monocular UDVA from 9 studies (n=344 eyes) was 0.03 logMAR. 26 The review of another meta-analysis with trifocal lenses showed that the mean UDVA from 3 studies (n=81) was 0.07 logMAR, mean CDVA from 4 studies (n=105) was 0.01 logMAR, and mean DCNVA from 5 studies (n=149) was 0.11 logMAR. 27 Interestingly, in our study, both the binocular defocus curve as well as binocular DCNVA showed a trend towards a better near VA in the POD F group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Poyales¹,

Pérez²,

López-Brea³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large meta-analysis of 395 subjects noted that visual quality, including contrast sensitivity testing, was similar between bifocal and trifocal diffractive lenses, with the added benefit of improved intermediate vision with trifocal lenses. 3 The ideal implantable multifocal IOL will improve vision across a range of distances from distance to near without negatively impacting contrast sensitivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refractive and Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Large Population

Carreño¹,

Carreño²,

Carreño³

et al. 2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In 2014, Leung and coworkers 30 assessed 4 types of IOLs, but the target population was uveitis patients, and only 4 studies were included. Recently, 2 systematic reviews on IOLs published by Yoon and coworkers and Xu and coworkers 54,57 compared bifocal and trifocal IOLs. Calladine and coworkers 3 and De Silva and coworkers 7 compared multifocal and monofocal IOLs, respectively, in 2008 and 2016, 44,50 but neither evaluated distance-corrected intermediate VA outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients: a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Cao

Friedman

Jin

et al. 2019

Survey of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compare multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs) to monofocal IOLs for visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity, and adverse events using data from 21 randomized controlled trials with 2951 subjects. There was no statistical difference between uncorrected distance VA and corrected distance VA. Compared with monofocal IOLs, MFIOLs showed a better performance on uncorrected intermediate VA measured at 60 cm and uncorrected near VA; the mean differences were-0.06 (95% confidence interval [

show abstract

Trifocal versus Bifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lens Implantation after Cataract Surgery or Refractive Lens Exchange: a Meta-analysis

Cited by 26 publications

References 39 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>

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

Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients: a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About