PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare quality of vision and reading performance outcomes after implantation of bifocal refractive-diffractive, bifocal apodized diffractive, or trifocal diffractive-refractive intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: This randomized, prospective, three-armed multicenter (Spain, Germany, and France) trial included 104 eyes of 52 patients (mean age: 63.2 ± 7.7 years). Patients underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of either AT LISA809M (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany: AT LISA group, 38 eyes), AT LISA tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec: AT LISA tri group, 32 eyes), or ReSTOR SN6AD1 (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX: ReSTOR group, 34 eyes) IOLs. Visual and refractive outcomes, depth of focus, and reading performance were evaluated at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The AT LISA tri group showed significantly better 12-month uncorrected (UIVA) and binocular distance-corrected (DCIVA) intermediate visual acuity (P ≤ .016) than the AT LISA group. The AT LISA tri group showed a significantly better 3-month UIVA compared to the ReSTOR group (P = .042). Binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuities were not significantly different among groups (P ≥ .092) at the 12-month follow-up. A total of 85.3%, 90.0%, and 78.1% of eyes had a spherical equivalent within ±0.50 D in the AT LISA, AT LISA tri, and ReSTOR groups, respectively, at 12 months (P = .038). No statistically significant differences between the trifocal and bifocal groups were detected for reading performance (P ≥ .055). CONCLUSIONS: The trifocal diffractive-refractive IOL provides enhanced intermediate visual restoration compared to bifocal diffractive-refractive or apodized diffractive IOLs. The addition of an intermediate focal point did not deteriorate far or near vision. A comparable reading performance was maintained with the trifocal lens. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(10):655-662.]. Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare quality of vision and reading performance outcomes after implantation of bifocal refractive-diffractive, bifocal apodized diffractive, or trifocal diffractive-refractive intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: This randomized, prospective, three-armed multicenter (Spain, Germany, and France) trial included 104 eyes of 52 patients (mean age: 63.2 ± 7.7 years). Patients underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of either AT LISA 809M (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany: AT LISA group, 38 eyes), AT LISA tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec: AT LISA tri group, 32 eyes), or ReSTOR SN6AD1 (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX: ReSTOR group, 34 eyes) IOLs. Visual and refractive outcomes, depth of focus, and reading performance were evaluated at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The AT LISA tri group showed significantly better 12-month uncorrected (UIVA) and binocular distance-corrected (DCIVA) intermediate visual acuity (P ≤ .016) than the AT LISA group. The AT LISA tri group showed a significantly better 3-month UIVA compared to the ReSTOR group (P = .042). Binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuities were not significantly different among groups (P ≥ .092) at the 12-month follow-up. A total of 85.3%, 90.0%, and 78.1% of eyes had a spherical equivalent within ±0.50 D in the AT LISA, AT LISA tri, and ReSTOR groups, respectively, at 12 months (P = .038). No statistically significant differences between the trifocal and bifocal groups were detected for reading performance (P ≥ .055). CONCLUSIONS: The trifocal diffractive-refractive IOL provides enhanced intermediate visual restoration compared to bifocal diffractive-refractive or apodized diffractive IOLs. The addition of an intermediate focal point did not deteriorate far or near vision. A comparable reading performance was maintained with the trifocal lens. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(10):655-662.]. Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Diego Zamora-de La Cruz; Karla Zúñiga-Posselt; John Bartlett; Mario Gutierrez; Samuel A Abariga Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-18
Authors: Joaquín Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Noemi Burguera; David P Piñero Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 4.241