Comparison of visual results and quality of vision after bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses

Zamora-de-la-Cruz, Diego; Garzón, Marisol; Chávez-Mondragón, Eduardo

doi:10.24875/rmoe.m18000004

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 There have been numerous studies comparing visual outcomes and patient satisfaction with bifocal and trifocal IOLs. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] These studies, however, have compared the performance of IOLs with bilateral implantation exclusively. There is a lack of, and need for, literature comparing IOLs when one of each has been implanted in the same patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preference, Visual Quality, and Multivariate Regression Analysis with Contralateral Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

Bucci¹

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare patient preference and visual quality of a bifocal IOL versus a trifocal IOL when one of each lens is implanted in the same patient. Patients and methods Patients received a +3.25 Tecnis bifocal IOL in one eye and a PanOptix trifocal IOL in the opposite eye. Eyes were unilaterally evaluated and included UDVA, UIVA, UNVA, mesopic contrast sensitivity testing, and subjective questionnaires about overall satisfaction, and IOL preference. Regression was used to detect which objective or subjective metrics significantly predicted overall satisfaction for each eye. Results Sixty eyes of thirty patients were evaluated. Patients preferred (p=0.028) +3.25 to PanOptix. Overall satisfaction was significantly greater (p=0.05) for +3.25 (4.70 vs 4.43/5.00). UDVA (p=0.032) and “freq. of glasses use distance” (p=0.05) were significantly better for +3.25 eyes. Objective intermediate (Jaeger) vision was significantly better (p=0.034) for PanOptix eyes. “Freq. of glasses use intermediate” favored +3.25. Regression revealed variables related to intermediate vision and “ability to read fine print without glasses” were significant predictors of overall satisfaction for both IOLs. Variables related to contrast sensitivity both with and without glare were significant predictors exclusively for PanOptix eyes. Conclusion Patient preference favored +3.25 eyes (p=0.022). Individual rankings for each eye of “overall satisfaction” were significantly greater (p=0.05) for +3.25 eyes. UNVA and distance vision trended in favor of +3.25. Regression strongly suggests issues related to contrast sensitivity with PanOptix may be responsible for the significant patient preference of +3.25.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Preference, Visual Quality, and Multivariate Regression Analysis with Contralateral Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

Bucci¹

2022

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of visual results and quality of vision after bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses

Cited by 1 publication

References 20 publications

Patient Preference, Visual Quality, and Multivariate Regression Analysis with Contralateral Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

Patient Preference, Visual Quality, and Multivariate Regression Analysis with Contralateral Bifocal and Trifocal Intraocular Lenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About