Stability and visual outcomes yielded by three intraocular trifocal lenses with same optical zone design but differing material or toricity

Abstract

All three intraocular lens models yield excellent visual results at far, near as well as intermediate distances. The POD FineVision and POD Toric FineVision models, with double C-loop design, yielded the best results centration-wise and rotation-wise. Differences had no clinical relevance.

First Results after Implantation of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Trifocal Intraocular Lenses: Visual and Optical Performance

“…The DCNVA was 20/40 or better in 92% of the POD F GF group and 100% of the POD F group. The distance VA results for both the POD F GF IOL and POD F IOL achieved in this study are comparable to those of other studies that examined trifocal IOL models [ 5 , 6 , 12 – 16 ]. Regarding intermediate and near VAs, the results observed with trifocal IOLs in the literature vary and range from 0.1 logMAR or better for DCIVA and DCNVA [ 6 , 12 , 15 , 17 ] to visual acuities considerably below 0.1 logMAR [ 5 , 17 , 18 ].…”

<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.…”

“…8 – 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 – 25 Unlike double-C-loop POD lenses, the Micro F IOL has a four-loop haptic design. Compared to extended depth of focus (EDOF) lenses, FineVision IOLs performed statistically significantly better in terms of uncorrected near vision.…”

“…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.…”