PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the visual outcomes and ocular optical performance of the PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and Symfony extended range of vision IOL. METHODS: Sixty-eight eyes of 34 patients were divided into 2 groups: 20 patients with the PanOptix IOL and 14 patients with the Symfony IOL. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 and 60 cm, and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm were evaluated. Additionally, preferred reading distance with best-corrected distance and visual acuity at that distance, binocular defocus curves, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity, photic phenomena, and monocular total higher order aberrations (HOAs) were also measured. RESULTS: The visual outcomes for PanOptix and Symfony IOL groups, respectively, were as follows: BCDVA: -0.03 ± 0.03 and -0.02 ± 0.03 logMAR; DCIVA at 80 cm: 0.06 ± 0.06 and 0.06 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCIVA at 60 cm: 0.06 ± 0.10 and 0.05 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCNVA: 0.04 ± 0.06 and 0.20 ± 0.07 logMAR (p<0.001). Similar preferred reading distances were found for both groups (37.0 ± 4.6 and 38.9 ± 5.7 cm, respectively). The visual acuities at those distances were 0.09 ± 0.08 and 0.19 ± 0.08 logMAR (p<0.001), respectively. The defocus curves showed significantly better outcomes for the PanOptix IOL from -2.0 to -4.0 D (p<0.001). No significant differences were found for contrast sensitivity, halometry, or HOAs between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The PanOptix and Symfony IOLs showed comparable visual performance at distance and intermediate. However, the PanOptix IOL provided better near and preferred reading distance VAs and showed a more continuous range of vision than the Symfony IOL.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the visual outcomes and ocular optical performance of the PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and Symfony extended range of vision IOL. METHODS: Sixty-eight eyes of 34 patients were divided into 2 groups: 20 patients with the PanOptix IOL and 14 patients with the Symfony IOL. Binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 and 60 cm, and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm were evaluated. Additionally, preferred reading distance with best-corrected distance and visual acuity at that distance, binocular defocus curves, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivity, photic phenomena, and monocular total higher order aberrations (HOAs) were also measured. RESULTS: The visual outcomes for PanOptix and Symfony IOL groups, respectively, were as follows: BCDVA: -0.03 ± 0.03 and -0.02 ± 0.03 logMAR; DCIVA at 80 cm: 0.06 ± 0.06 and 0.06 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCIVA at 60 cm: 0.06 ± 0.10 and 0.05 ± 0.04 logMAR; DCNVA: 0.04 ± 0.06 and 0.20 ± 0.07 logMAR (p<0.001). Similar preferred reading distances were found for both groups (37.0 ± 4.6 and 38.9 ± 5.7 cm, respectively). The visual acuities at those distances were 0.09 ± 0.08 and 0.19 ± 0.08 logMAR (p<0.001), respectively. The defocus curves showed significantly better outcomes for the PanOptix IOL from -2.0 to -4.0 D (p<0.001). No significant differences were found for contrast sensitivity, halometry, or HOAs between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The PanOptix and Symfony IOLs showed comparable visual performance at distance and intermediate. However, the PanOptix IOL provided better near and preferred reading distance VAs and showed a more continuous range of vision than the Symfony IOL.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cataract; Extended depth of focus; Intraocular lens; Trifocal
Authors: Krzysztof Petelczyc; Andrzej Kolodziejczyk; Narcyz Błocki; Anna Byszewska; Zbigniew Jaroszewicz; Karol Kakarenko; Katarzyna Kołacz; Michał Miler; Alejandro Mira-Agudelo; Walter Torres-Sepúlveda; Marek Rękas Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Laura J Wood; Jasleen K Jolly; Markus Groppe; Larry Benjamin; James F Kirwan; Nishal Patel; Mostafa A Elgohary; Robert E MacLaren Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-16
Authors: Majid Moshirfar; James Ellis; Daniel Beesley; Shannon E McCabe; Adam Lewis; William B West; Yasmyne Ronquillo; Phillip Hoopes Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2021-07-16