Comparison of visual outcomes after two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus and trifocal intraocular lenses

Kim, Jung Wan; Eom, Youngsub; Park, Wonkyung; Song, Jong Suk; Jeong, Ji Won; Park, Seh Kwang; Kim, Hyo Myung

doi:10.1007/s00417-022-05710-w

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lens has UV and blue filtering. The lens is made of glistening-free material and double C-loop with ridge technology to reduce the risk of stickiness between the haptics and the optic 4,72,73 Tecnis Symfony ZXR00 (Johnson & Johnson Vision): The Tecnis Symfony is a C-loop single-piece extended range of vision IOL based on diffractive achromatic technology (Fig.…”

Section: Evidence About the Clinical Behavior Of Edof Iolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latest Development in Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: An Update

Megiddo-Barnir

Alió

2023

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, there has been an overwhelming influx of different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs) as treatment for presbyopia. The extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) technology creates a single elongated focal point to enhance depth of focus, in contrast to the multiple foci of multifocal (MF) lenses. In this way, the EDOF lenses aim to reduce photic phenomena, glare, and halos, which have been reported in MF IOLs. A potential disadvantage of this is a blur due to decreased retinal image quality when the amount of the aberrations is increased excessively. Multifocality and EDOF characteristics are not exclusive of each other. Frequently, EDOF IOLs are combined with MF optical designs, a bifocal IOL may exhibit EDOF characteristics, likewise an aspheric monofocal IOL or a diffractive or refractive trifocal IOL. Thus, EDOF lenses are commonly subjected to confusion. A wide range of different types of EDOF lenses are available on the market to surgeons. In this practical update, we aim to clarify what is a true EDOF lens, classify the different types of the EDOF lenses based on their optical principle and review their recently reported outcomes. Comprehensive patient examination and selection, combined with knowledge of the most updated options and adequate patient counseling, can avoid dissatisfaction and yield the desired outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Evidence About the Clinical Behavior Of Edof Iolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latest Development in Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: An Update

Megiddo-Barnir

Alió

2023

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They concluded that none of the objective methods were as reliable as subjective refraction, irrespective of the lens material, but the POD F GF objective values seem to differ less with subjective refraction than the POD F objective values. Kim et al 11 analyzed 212 eyes (106 patients) with mix-and-match implanted FineVision Triumf and FineVision HP (POD F GF IOL) and 212 eyes (106 subjects) with mix-and-match implanted Zeiss AT LARA and AT LISA IOLs at 6–10 weeks after cataract surgery. They concluded that these lenses provided good visual outcomes at far, intermediate, and near distances, with the FineVision IOLs leading to better visual outcomes in terms of near vision, while the other combination resulted in better visual outcomes for intermediate vision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long Term Clinical Outcomes of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Versions of a Trifocal IOL with the Same Optical Design

Ang¹

2023

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To show the visual and refractive outcomes in Asian eyes with cataract when bilaterally implanted with either a hydrophobic FineVision POD F GF or a hydrophilic FineVision POD F intraocular lens (IOL). Methods Forty-six patients were randomized to receive POD F GF or POD F IOLs. Visual and refractive outcomes were assessed up to 24 months post-surgery. Measurements included uncorrected-distance visual acuity, corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), refraction, defocus curve, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity, and patient-reported outcomes. Results Mean spherical equivalent was close to emmetropia for both groups and stable across postoperative visits. Overall, 97.73% and 100% of eyes in the POD F GF IOL group and 95.65% and 100%, of eyes in the POD F IOL group were within ±1.00D of the target refraction at 12 and 24 months, respectively. All patients showed a CDVA of ≥20/25 at 12- and 24-months post-surgery. In both groups, 24 months post-surgery 91% of patients presented a DCIVA of ≥20/25 and 83.3% of patients had a DCNVA of ≥20/25. Defocus curve showed continuous visual acuity, being 20/32 or better in both groups over a 4.00D range between 1.00D and −3.00/-3.50D. Both groups showed good contrast sensitivity values for photopic and mesopic conditions. Overall, 86.4%, 86.4%, and 72.7% of patients implanted with the POD F GF IOL reported not wearing glasses at all for distance, intermediate, and near vision, respectively. These values were 81.8%, 86.4%, and 90.9% for patients implanted with the POD F IOL. Both groups of patients reported similar satisfaction percentages (100% very satisfied/satisfied) and would recommend the procedure (100% definitively yes/probably yes). Conclusion This study demonstrates good visual and refractive outcomes for both the FineVision POD F GF and the FineVision POD F IOLs when implanted in Asian eyes.

show abstract

“…Since this lens favored intermediate rather than near vision, its optical quality and expected VA were better at the former position. Kim et al compared the visual outcomes of a mix-and-match procedure involving the Triumf and a standard trifocal lens (FineVision HP) of the same manufacturer, and an EDoF AT Lara with an AT Lisa Tri (both from Carl Zeiss) [ 12 ]. They reported a monocular defocus curve of the Triumf IOL implanted in 106 subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The clinical best-corrected VA obtained monocularly was approximately 0.01 logMAR, which contrasts with −0.04 logMAR predicted (binocularly), indicating the contribution of non-optical factors. Still, the predicted reduction in VA at near compared to intermediate distance was reflected by Kim et al’s assessment [ 12 ]. They found a logMAR VA of (approx.)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the introduction of the concept of trifocality [ 8 ], various designs have been proposed. The literature shows that designs featuring several Fresnel rings can be considered the leading approach [ 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Despite similarities in the working principle, such as light diffraction, each diffractive-refractive lens has its own characteristic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Five Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses: Optical-Bench Assessment with Visual-Quality Simulation

Łabuz

Yan

Baur

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presbyopia correction through implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) is a modality offered to both cataract and refractive-lens exchange patients. To maximize postoperative satisfaction, IOL selection needs to be made based on patients’ requirements aligned with the available technology. Five Trifocal IOLs were assessed in this study, and their differentiating features were identified: Triumf POD L GF, AT Lisa Tri, Tecnis Synergy, AcrySof IQ PanOptix, and Acriva Trinova Pro C. The optical quality was assessed using the modulation-transfer-function principle. Simulated defocus curves were derived from a non-linear formula. Far-focus simulated visual acuity (simVA) was 0.03 logMAR or better for all the studied IOLs, showing minimal differences. However, each IOL’s intermediate focus position differed across a range from 61 cm to 80 cm; and for the near focus, it was 36 cm to 44 cm. Triumf demonstrated improved intermediate point at the expense of the near focus resulting in a lower predicted near VA. PanOptix exhibited the shortest range of vision without a clear distinction between intermediate and near-point. The remaining lenses presented three foci of comparable optical quality and, thus, simVA performance. Each model, however, revealed a different aperture-change response. Trinova function improved at intermediate but was worse at near for larger pupils. The opposite was observed for AT Lisa. Synergy’s optical quality change was predominantly associated with lower pupil diameter. In conclusion, the trifocal IOLs can be differentiated according to their secondary-foci position, light-energy distribution, and pupil-size-related behavior. The observed differences may translate directly into a clinical effect showing that the trifocal IOLs vary in their ability to deliver optimal vision at different distances, with some providing improved intermediate while others favor reading distance. The knowledge gained through this objective testing can support IOL selection, postoperative patient counselling and increase the chance of spectacle independence after surgery.

show abstract

Comparison of visual outcomes after two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus and trifocal intraocular lenses

Cited by 16 publications

References 41 publications

Latest Development in Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: An Update

Latest Development in Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses: An Update

Long Term Clinical Outcomes of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Versions of a Trifocal IOL with the Same Optical Design

Comparison of Five Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses: Optical-Bench Assessment with Visual-Quality Simulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About