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

Analysis of visual quality improvement after implantation of PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens in cataract patients with different axial lengths

OBJECTIVE

To assess the visual quality, both subjective and objective, of cataract patients with varying axial lengths (AL) after PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and investigated the lens tilt and its correlation with visual outcomes.

METHODS

From July 2020 to June 2022, 70 patients (140 eyes) diagnosed with age-related cataracts and undergoing PanOptix implantation at Chongqing Eye and Vision Care Hospital, Aier Eye Hospital Group, were included. Patients were assigned to either the observation group (35 cases, 70 eyes with PanOptix trifocal IOL) or the control group (35 cases, 70 eyes with bifocal IOL). Patients were further subdivided based on AL into AL < 24 mm (observation group: 23 eyes; control group: 26 eyes) and AL ≥ 24 mm (observation group: 47 eyes; control group: 44 eyes). Postoperative follow-up lasted three months. Visual acuity (distant, intermediate, near), objective visual quality (Strehl ratio: SR, total eye modulation transfer function (MTF)), and visual aberrations were measured preoperatively and at 3 months post-operation.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, all groups saw significant improvements in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA), and uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA) compared to preoperative values (T0) (all P < 0.05). Notably, UCIVA was significantly better in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). At three months (T1), reductions in total high-order aberration (tHOA), internal high-order aberration (iHOA), coma, and trefoil aberrations were observed in both groups compared to baseline, with more significant decreases in the observation group (all P < 0.05). Both SR and MTF cutoff showed marked improvement from T0 to T1, with the observation group experiencing greater enhancements (both P < 0.05). The defocus curve of the observation group showed a gentle slope between +0.5 D and -3.0 D, maintaining superior visual acuity compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Subjective visual quality scores at T1 were significantly higher than at T0 for both groups (P < 0.05), with patients in the observation group scoring higher than those in the control group across all AL categories (P < 0.05). Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the tilt after PanOptix trifocal IOL implantation was associated with tHOA (r = 0.273, P = 0.022), iHOA (r = 0.433, P < 0.001), Trefoil (r = 0.360, P = 0.002) and coma (r = 0.688, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PanOptix trifocal IOL implantation in cataract patients across different AL significantly enhances visual quality compared to bifocal IOLs, suggesting a strong case for its clinical adoption.

Clinical prospective intra-individual comparison after mix-and-match implantation of a monofocal EDOF and a diffractive trifocal IOL

OBJECTIVES

To assess intra-individually visual acuity (VA) and subjective outcome after mix-and-match implantation of a monofocal EDOF IOL and a diffractive trifocal IOL.

METHODS

The monofocal EDOF Isopure IOL was implanted in the dominant eye and the trifocal FineVision HP IOL in the non-dominant eye. Postoperative evaluation included VA at various distances, contrast acuity, monocular defocus curves, decentration and tilt, wavefront aberrometry, VF-7 questionnaire and a halo and glare simulator.

RESULTS

50 eyes of 25 subjects were enroled. The trifocal IOL performed better at monocular DCNVA (p < 0.01) and at defocus levels of -1.5D to -4.0D (p < 0.01), the monofocal EDOF IOL was better at -0.5D (p = 0.013). No differences in monocular BCDVA, DCIVA, contrast acuity, decentration or tilt were observed (p > 0.05). Wavefront analysis revealed lower HOAs in the trifocal group at 5 mm (p < 0.01) and no difference (p = 0.107) at 3 mm pupil aperture. The monofocal EDOF IOL displayed increased negative SA at 5 mm (p < 0.01) and 3 mm (p < 0.01) pupil diameter. Low values of optical phenomena and satisfying results of the VF-7 questionnaire were obtained.

CONCLUSION

Excellent visual performance and low rates of optical phenomena were achieved after mix-and-match implantation of the monofocal EDOF Isopure IOL and the trifocal FineVision HP IOL. Trifocal IOL implantation in the non-dominant eye may decrease optical disturbing phenomena. Similar results were observed for monocular distance, intermediate and contrast VA. The trifocal IOL provided better monocular near VA. Decentration and tilt and HOAs were low.

Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia

PURPOSE

To assess visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes that had previously undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and to compare them with those recorded after implantation of a monofocal IOL.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative cases series.

METHODS

This study evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), safety, and efficacy after the implantation of two comparable trifocal IOL models and one monofocal IOL model in patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK. Patients were classified according to the implanted IOL (monofocal or trifocal).

RESULTS

A total of 211 eyes from 170 patients received a monofocal IOL, and 211 eyes from 161 patients received a trifocal IOL. At the end of the study, after lensectomy, there was a higher myopic residual spherical equivalent in the monofocal group because some eyes had been targeted for slight myopia to achieve monovision; therefore, UDVA was better in the trifocal group. CDVA was comparable in both groups. As expected, both monocular and binocular UNVA were significantly better in the trifocal group. Although the percentage of eyes that lost ≥1 line of CDVA did not differ between the groups, the safety index was slightly better in the monofocal group.

CONCLUSION

Although implantation of monofocal and trifocal IOLs after myopic LASIK yielded excellent distance visual outcomes, UNVA was significantly better for the trifocal IOL, with a minimally worse safety profile. Trifocal IOLs can be considered after previous LASIK for myopia, with an appropriate patient selection.

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

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among people with presbyopia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years of age or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence according to the GRADE classification.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven studies conducted in Europe and Turkey with a total of 331 participants. All included studies assessed visual acuity using a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR chart). Of them, six (86%) studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (the primary outcome of this review). Some studies also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 55 to 74 years. Three studies reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all of the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study examined vision-related quality of life using the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) at six months, and suggested no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOLs (MD 1.41, 95% CI -1.78 to 4.60; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Of five studies reporting information on adverse events, two studies observed no intraoperative and postoperative complications or no posterior capsular opacification at six months. One study reported that glare and halos were similar to the preoperative measurements. One study reported that 4 (20%) and 10 (50%) participants had glare complaints at 6 months in trifocal and bifocal group, respectively (risk ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.07; 40 participants). One study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal group and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy at one year. The certainty of the evidence for adverse events was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty of evidence that compared with bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there was no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity, quality of life, and vision-related adverse effects.

Visual Outcomes and Optical Quality of Accommodative, Multifocal, Extended Depth-of-Focus, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Presbyopia-Correcting Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Importance

A bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can help compare the various types of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) used in clinical practice.

Objective

To compare outcomes of presbyopia-correcting IOLs frequently recommended in clinical practice through a bayesian NMA based on a systematic review.

Data Sources

Medline (PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on May 15, 2021, from inception.

Study Selection

Based on the research question, randomized clinical trials assessing multifocal IOLs in patients who underwent bilateral cataract extraction were searched. Nonrandomized studies, studies in patients with unilateral or contralateral cataract extractions, duplicated studies, conference abstracts, and nonpeer-reviewed articles were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Descriptive statistics and outcomes were extracted. The NMA was conducted to compare different types of IOLs. The mean differences for continuous variables, odds ratios for binary variables, 95% credible intervals (CrIs), and ranks of interventions were estimated.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcomes examined included binocular visual acuities by distance and optical quality, including glare, halos, and spectacle independence.

Results

This NMA included 27 studies comprising 2605 patients. For uncorrected near visual acuity, trifocal IOLs (mean difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.46 to -0.19]) and old bifocal diffractive IOLs (mean difference, -0.33 [95% CrI, -0.50 to -0.14]) afforded better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. Regarding uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, extended depth-of-focus IOLs provided better visual acuity than monofocal IOLs. However, there were no differences between extended depth-of-focus and trifocal diffractive IOLs in pairwise comparisons. For uncorrected distant visual acuity, all multifocal IOLs were comparable with monofocal IOLs. There were no statistical differences between multifocal and monofocal IOLs regarding contrast sensitivity, glare, or halos.

Conclusions and Relevance

For patients considering a multifocal IOL due to presbyopia, bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL might be an optimal option for patients without compromising distant visual acuity.

Vision-related Quality of Life after Bilateral Implantation of Monofocal and Multifocal Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To evaluate vision-related quality of life in two sets of patients after routine cataract surgery implanting with traditional versus multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs).

Methods

In a cross-sectional prospective study, 58 and 33 candidates for cataract surgery were divided into traditional (Acrysof SN60WF, Alcon Laboratories, Inc) and multifocal IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL TFNT00, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.) groups, respectively. The primary outcome was VFQ-25 scores. The secondary outcomes were making comparisons between the two IOL types in the near vision and the driving items.

Results

mean patients' age in traditional and multifocal IOL groups was 60.85 ± 7.40 (55% female) and 59.85 ± 8.95 (36% female) years, respectively. The mean VFQ-25 total scores in traditional and multifocal IOL groups before and after surgery were 63.69 ± 4.95 and 72.15 ± 9.66, and 98.08 ± 0.70 and 95.70 ± 1.30, respectively (P = 0.001 & 0.001). The mean scores of night driving in traditional and multifocal IOL groups were 38.79 ± 20.50 and 44.35 ± 21.12 (P = 0.1) before surgery which improved to 97.41 ± 7.68 and 56.45 ± 11.12 after surgery, respectively (P = 0.001). The mean scores of near vision in traditional and multifocal IOL groups were 46.83 ± 10.56 and 50.53 ± 8.58 (P = 0.2) before surgery which improved to 89.94 ± 4.87 and 100.00 ± 0.00 after surgery, respectively (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Vision-related quality of life after cataract surgery with either type of traditional or multifocal (PanOptix) IOLs improved to an excellent level. Traditional IOLs provided more satisfaction in nighttime driving while multifocal IOLs provided increased satisfaction in near and intermediate vision.

Comparative Efficacy Between Trifocal and Bifocal Intraocular Lens Among Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The comparative efficacy of trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) remained uncertain among patients undergoing cataract surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to answer this question. PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched to capture relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Visual acuity (VA) and patient's satisfaction were regarded as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included residual sphere, spherical equivalence, residual cylinder, posterior capsular opacification (PCO), spectacle independence, and other complications. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan 5.2.0. A total of 9 studies (11 RCTs) with 297 participants (558 eyes) were included. Meta-analysis showed significant differences between trifocal and bifocal IOLs in the uncorrected near VA (mean difference [MD], −0.008; 95% confidence interval [Cl], −0.015 to −0.001; P = 0.028) and uncorrected intermediate VA (MD, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; P < 0.01). Trifocal IOLs were associated with decreased PCO incidence when compared to bifocal IOLs (relative risk [RR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.95; P = 0.03). Trifocal IOLs may be superior to bifocal IOLs because of its improved intermediate VA and reduced incidence of PCO.

Trifocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery for myopia and hyperopia

PURPOSE

To evaluate the visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes previously treated with myopic and hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery.

SETTING

Clinica Baviera-AIER-Eye group, Spain.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative case series.

METHODS

The series was divided into 2 groups according to the type of corneal laser refraction (myopic and hyperopic). The main visual and refractive outcome measures included corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and uncorrected distance and near visual acuity, safety, efficacy, and predictability. The secondary outcome measures were percentage of enhancement and Nd:YAG capsulotomy and influence of prelaser magnitude of myopia and hyperopia on the outcome of trifocal IOL implantation.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 868 eyes (543 patients): myopic, n = 319 eyes (36.7%); and hyperopic, n = 549 eyes (63.2%). Three months postoperatively, visual outcomes were poorer in the hyperopic group than those in the myopic group for mean CDVA (0.06 ± 0.05 vs 0.04 ± 0.04, P < .01) and safety (21% vs 12% of CDVA line loss, P < .05) outcomes. However, precision outcomes were worse in the myopic group than those in the hyperopic group, with a mean spherical equivalent of -0.38 ± 0.3 vs -0.17 ± 0.3 (P < .01). Stratification by magnitude of primary laser treatment revealed poorer visual and safety results in the high hyperopia subgroup (>+3.0 diopters [D]) and poorer precision in the high myopia subgroup (<-5.0 D).

CONCLUSIONS

Trifocal IOL implantation after photorefractive surgery in eyes previously treated with myopic ablation achieved good visual outcomes but less predictability in the high myopia subgroup. However, eyes with a previous hyperopic corneal ablation achieved excellent precision but worse visual and safety outcomes in the high hyperopia subgroup.

Subjective and objective clinical outcomes of a new trifocal toric intraocular lens and effect of femtosecond laser cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and quality of life following implantation of PanOptix toric intraocular lens (IOL) and to compare the outcomes following femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and standard cataract surgery (SCS).

METHODS

This comparative retrospective study included 79 eyes of 55 patients underwent cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery between April 2017 and January 2020 in Bayindir Hospital and Kaskaloglu Eye Hospital. Corneal (CA) and refractive astigmatism (RA), uncorrected visual acuities for distant, intermediate, and near (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA), low contrast distance visual acuity, rotational stability, defocus curves, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS), visual function-14 (VF-14) test, presence of dysphotopsia, and need for spectacles were evaluated at postoperative third month. Outcomes were compared between FLACS and SCS group.

RESULTS

The mean UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA were 0.05 ± 0.07, 0.08 ± 0.08, and 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR, respectively. All patients achieved ⩾0.3 logMAR uncorrected visual acuity for all distances. UDVA was found significantly better in FLACS group (p = 0.03). All eyes had ⩽1 D of subjective postoperative RA. Defocus curve had two peaks at 0 and -1.50 D. Spectacle independence was achieved in 88.7% of patients. Photopic and mesopic CS was within normal range in all patients. The mean VF-14 score was 98 ± 2. The mean IOL axis rotation was 2.1° ± 2.3°. Only one patient reported seeing disturbing halos.

CONCLUSIONS

This trifocal toric IOL effectively reduced refractive astigmatism and provided excellent visual outcomes with high spectacle independence, patients' satisfaction, and good rotational stability. FLACS might have an impact on optimal postoperative results.

Reported Patient Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence Following Bilateral Implantation of the PanOptix® Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To assess the spectacle independence and satisfaction of subjects after bilateral implantation of the PanOptix^® trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) at the time of cataract surgery.

Design

Single site, prospective, single-arm study.

Methods

Eligible subjects interested in a trifocal IOL to potentially reduce dependence on spectacles for near, intermediate and distance vision were enrolled and followed for 3 months after the second eye surgery. Visual acuity and refractive data were collected 1 month and 3 months postoperative, including the uncorrected and best distance-corrected binocular visual acuities at distance (4m), intermediate (60 cm) and near (40cm). A patient satisfaction and spectacle independence questionnaire were administered at the 3-month visit.

Results

A total of 30 subjects successfully completed the study. Eighty-five percent of eyes (51/60) had a refraction within 0.50 D of plano with ≤ 0.50 D of refractive cylinder. One subject (3%) reported needing glasses for distance work, 3 (10%) for intermediate work and 4 (13%) for near work. Ninety percent or more of all subjects reported never wearing glasses or wearing them only a little at all working distances. Ninety percent or more were able to function without glasses at all 3 working distances all or most of the time. More than ninety percent of subjects reported being “com.pletely” or “mostly” satisfied with their vision without glasses or contact lenses at all three distances and overall.

Conclusion

A high percentage of patients are likely to achieve spectacle independence for distance, intermediate and near vision with this trifocal IOL.

Spectacle Independence and Quality of Vision After Bilateral Implantation of a Trifocal Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To evaluate the patient-reported spectacle independence and quality of vision for patients who were bilaterally implanted with a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

Design

Single site, prospective, single-arm study.

Methods

Subjects presenting for cataract surgery who had an interest in reducing their dependence on glasses at multiple distances were enrolled. Subjects were bilaterally implanted with a trifocal IOL and followed for 3 months post-surgery. A spectacle independence questionnaire and a quality of vision questionnaire were administered at the 3-month visit. The binocular visual acuity at distance (4 m), intermediate (60 cm) and near (40 cm) was also measured in the uncorrected and distance-corrected state.

Results

All but one subject reported no need for glasses for distance and intermediate work, and most (25/29) reported no need for glasses for near work. Almost all subjects reported never wearing glasses or wearing them only a little, and being able to function without glasses at any distance all or most of the time. Ninety percent of subjects (26/29) reported being completely or mostly satisfied with their vision overall, without the use of glasses or contact lenses. The mean binocular visual acuity 1 and 3 months after surgery was better than 0.1 logMAR (20/25) at all test distances in both the uncorrected and distance-corrected states. The reported quality of vision appeared similar to previously reported data for the same IOL.

Conclusion

The trifocal IOL provided nearly all subjects with functional vision and spectacle independence for distance, intermediate and near work. It is a viable alternative for patients looking to reduce their overall dependence on spectacles after cataract surgery.

Use of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses in patients with prior corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Corneal refractive surgery has achieved spectacle-free vision for millions of patients, but this aging population is now developing cataracts. Many of these patients may wish to avoid reliance on glasses after cataract surgery. Presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs) offer a solution, but corneal changes after refractive surgery may compound higher order aberrations and dysphotopic symptoms associated with these IOLs. This review aims to discuss potential factors that could aid in determining suitable postkeratorefractive candidates for presbyopia-correcting IOLs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies investigating which preoperative measures influence outcomes are lacking. The few studies that have examined presbyopia-correcting IOLs in postkeratorefractive patients report that satisfactory outcomes are possible. However, recommendations for preoperative thresholds appear limited to expert opinion and studies involving virgin corneas.

SUMMARY

As the number of presbyopia-correcting IOLs and postkeratorefractive patients grows, continued investigation into relevant preoperative factors and appropriate IOLs is required to make evidence-based decisions. The current literature shows that with rigorous counseling and appropriate patient selection, presbyopia-correcting IOLs can provide postkeratorefractive patients with satisfactory results and spectacle independence. In addition, the development of postoperative modifiable IOLs may prove to be the preferred option.

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

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.

Defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOL designs: Diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive, and extended-depth-of-focus

PURPOSE

To evaluate the defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Patients included in the study had bilateral surgery with implantation of diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive (SegRef), or extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) presbyopia-correcting IOLs. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) and near (DCNVA) visual acuities, defocus curve, and spectacle independence were measured.

RESULTS

The UDVA and CDVA were not significantly different between groups (P > .05); however, the EDOF group had worse near CDVA (P < .001). The trifocal and EDOF groups showed better DCIVA than the panfocal and SegRef group at 80 cm (P < .001); the EDOF and panfocal groups had comparable DCIVA at 60 cm (P > .05). Defocus curves showed no significant between-group differences from 4 m to 2 m (P > .05). The EDOF group had better visual acuity from 1 m to 67 cm than the trifocal and SegRef groups and better visual acuity than the panfocal group at 1 m (P > .05). Compared with the other IOLs, the panfocal IOL yielded significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm (P < .001) and the EDOF IOL worse visual acuity at 40 cm (P < .01). There was a significant difference in spectacle independence between the panfocal group and EDOF group (P < .05) but no difference between the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 4 IOLs provided equally good CDVA. The EDOF IOL yielded slightly better DCIVA but worse DCNVA than the other IOLs. Only the panfocal IOL gave better DCIVA at 50 cm.

Refractive surgery beyond 2020

Refractive surgery refers to any procedure that corrects or minimizes refractive errors. Today, refractive surgery has evolved beyond the traditional laser refractive surgery, embodied by the popular laser in situ keratomileusis or 'LASIK'. New keratorefractive techniques such as small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) avoids corneal flap creation and uses a single laser device, while advances in surface ablation techniques have seen a resurgence in its popularity. Presbyopic treatment options have also expanded to include new ablation profiles, intracorneal implants, and phakic intraocular implants. With the improved safety and efficacy of refractive lens exchange, a wider variety of intraocular lens implants with advanced optics provide more options for refractive correction in carefully selected patients. In this review, we also discuss possible developments in refractive surgery beyond 2020, such as preoperative evaluation of refractive patients using machine learning and artificial intelligence, potential use of stromal lenticules harvested from SMILE for presbyopic treatments, and various advances in intraocular lens implants that may provide a closer to 'physiological correction' of refractive errors.

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

BACKGROUND

Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among participants with presbyopia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 September 2019. We searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles and the abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) for the years 2005 to 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies conducted in Europe with a total of 175 participants. All five studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (primary outcome of the review), while some also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 58 to 64 years. Only one study reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I2 = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). In two studies, the investigators observed that participants' satisfaction or spectacle independence may be higher in the trifocal group at six months, although another study found no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction or spectacle independence between groups. Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Two studies reported information on adverse events at one year. One study reported that participants showed no intraoperative or postoperative complications, while the other study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy. The certainty of the evidence was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty of evidence that compared to bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there is no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity and quality of life.

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

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.

Subjective Perception Of Trifocal IOL Performance, Including Toric Models

Purpose

To study the patients’ perception of trifocal IOL (Panoptix™) performance.

Patients and methods

60 eyes of 35 were implanted with trifocal IOL. Refractive (sphere – S, cylinder – Cyl and spherical equivalent – SE, all in D) and visual (distance uncorrected – VAsc, distance corrected – VAcc, intermediate – IntVA, near uncorrected – NVAsc and distance corrected near – NVAcc, all in LogMAR) results were recorded. Patients were asked about satisfaction (per eye), spectacle independence, near and intermediate activities, distance activities in quantity and quality, finally about personal facial care (per patient). Comparison was made between non-toric (48) and toric models, genders (18 males) and between bilateral (25 patients) and unilateral implantations. Results were correlated to age and IOL power.

Results

With a SE of mean −0.3 ± 0.5 D, cases achieved mean VAsc 0.09 ± 0.1 (~20/25), VAcc 0.05 ± 0.1 (~20/22), IntVA 0.05 ± 0.9 (~20/22), NVAsc 0.05 ± 0.09 (~~20/22) and NVAcc 0.04 ± 0.8 (~~20/22). Mean level of satisfaction was 85.7 ± 16.5, spectacle independence 96.0 ± 10.6, near activities 95.4 ± 9.8, intermediate activities 97.7 ± 6.4, quantity of distance activities 90.2 ± 10.1, quality of distance activities 88.0 ± 12.1 and facial care 92.6 ± 11.9. All comparisons (non-toric and toric, male and female and bilateral and unilateral implantation) were statistically insignificant (P>0.05). Correlation with age and IOL power was also statistically insignificant (P>0.05).

Conclusion

As perceived by patients, trifocal IOL resulted in very high level of satisfaction. This satisfaction is reflected on diverse visual activities. This level is achieved regardless of gender, IOL model or even unilateral implantation. It is also achieved regardless the age of patients or preoperative eye status.

Comparison of postoperative visual performance between bifocal and trifocal intraocular Lens based on randomized controlled trails: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical performance of bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials was conducted.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature retrieval of PubMed, Science Direct and EMBASE was performed in this systematic review. Clinical outcomes included visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were 8 RCTs included in this study. The difference of uncorrected near VA (UNVA) between the bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs had no significance [MD = 0.02, 95%CI: (- 0.03,0.06)]. There was no significant difference in the distant-corrected near VA (DCNVA) with MD of 0.04 [95%CI (- 0.02, 0.10)]. Compared with trifocal group, the uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) [MD = 0.09,95%CI:(0.01,0.17)] was significantly worse in the bifocal group. No difference was found in distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA) [MD = 0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.04, 0.23)] between two groups. Analysis on AT LISA subgroup indicated the bifocal group had worse intermediate VA than trifocal group (AT LISA tri 839 M) [MD = 0.18, 95%CI: (0.12, 0.24) for UIVA and MD = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.13, 0.25) for DCIVA]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the uncorrected distance VA (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [MD = 0.01, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.04) for UDVA; MD = 0.00, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.01) for CDVA]. The postoperative refraction of bifocal group was similar to that of trifocal group [MD = -0.08, 95% CI: (- 0.19, 0.03) for spherical equivalent; MD = -0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.21, 0.03) for cylinder; MD = -0.09, 95% CI: (- 0.27, 0.08) for sphere]. No difference was found for spectacle independence, posterior capsular opacification (PCO) incidence and patient satisfaction between bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs. [RR = 0.89, 95% CI: (0.71, 1.12) for spectacle independence; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: (0.50, 6.54) for PCO incidence; RR = 0.98, 5% CI: (0.86, 1.12) for patient satisfaction].

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving trifocal IOLs, especially AT LISA tri 839 M, have a better intermediate VA than those receiving bifocal IOLs. Near and distance visual performance, spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction of bifocal IOLs were similar to those of trifocal IOLs.