Comparison of 3-month visual outcomes of a spherical and a toric trifocal intraocular lens

Abstract

To evaluate visual outcomes and satisfaction after implantation of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs): a spherical IOL and a toric IOL.

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

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

<p>Multivariate Regression Analysis Identifying Predictors of Patient Satisfaction with Multifocal IOLs: +4.00/+4.00 vs +3.25/+3.25 vs +3.25/EDOF</p>

“…Multifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) implants can provide functional uncorrected vision at near and intermediate distances resulting in high levels of satisfaction in the majority of patients. [1][2][3] There are, however, limitations of presbyopiccorrecting IOLs that can lead to less than optimal patient satisfaction including loss of contrast sensitivity, dysphotopsias, 4 and an inability to achieve acceptable functional outcomes for all three visual targets -distance, intermediate, and near.…”

Toric Intraocular Lenses

“…In previous studies [68][69][70][71][72], toric multifocal IOLs achieved good visual performance, with UDVA better than 20/40 in more than 97% of patients, uncorrected near visual acuity better than 20/40 in 100% of patients, spectacle independence in more than 80% of patients, and residual refractive astigmatism lower than 0.50 D in 38-79% of patients. Toric trifocal IOLs such as a trifocal spherical hydrophilic IOL (FineVision POD F) [73] also showed great performance.…”