Rita Mencucci1, Eleonora Favuzza2, Orsola Caporossi2, Alfonso Savastano2, Stanislao Rizzo2. 1. Eye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. rita.mencucci@unifi.it. 2. Eye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual and contrast sensitivity (CS) outcomes, reading skills, and spectacle independence in patients implanted with two models of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL. METHODS: This non-randomized prospective series of cases included 120 eyes of 60 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of three different IOLs: the ERV IOL Tecnis Symfony (40 eyes) (Abbott Medical Optics), the trifocal IOLs PanOptix IQ (40 eyes) (Alcon), and AT LISA tri 839MP (40 eyes) (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Visual results, photopic and mesopic CS, binocular reading skills (MNREAD charts), and patient satisfaction were evaluated 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity. The Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better mesopic intermediate visual outcomes than the two trifocal IOLs (p < 0.05 vs AT LISA). Under photopic conditions, AT LISA tri 839MP and PanOptix IQ showed better near visual outcomes compared with the ERV IOL (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). The Tecnis Symfony IOL provided significantly better photopic and mesopic CS outcomes than the other IOL models (p < 0.001). Reading skills were not significantly different between the three IOL models (p > 0.05). Less patients implanted with the two trifocal IOLs required a near addition than patients with the ERV IOL. CONCLUSIONS: All the tested IOLs provided good visual outcome, reading performance, and spectacle independence after cataract surgery. While trifocal IOLs gave better near visual acuity results, the ERV IOL provided better contrast sensitivity.
PURPOSE: To compare visual and contrast sensitivity (CS) outcomes, reading skills, and spectacle independence in patients implanted with two models of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL. METHODS: This non-randomized prospective series of cases included 120 eyes of 60 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of three different IOLs: the ERV IOL Tecnis Symfony (40 eyes) (Abbott Medical Optics), the trifocal IOLs PanOptix IQ (40 eyes) (Alcon), and AT LISA tri 839MP (40 eyes) (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Visual results, photopic and mesopic CS, binocular reading skills (MNREAD charts), and patient satisfaction were evaluated 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity. The Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better mesopic intermediate visual outcomes than the two trifocal IOLs (p < 0.05 vs AT LISA). Under photopic conditions, AT LISA tri 839MP and PanOptix IQ showed better near visual outcomes compared with the ERV IOL (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). The Tecnis Symfony IOL provided significantly better photopic and mesopic CS outcomes than the other IOL models (p < 0.001). Reading skills were not significantly different between the three IOL models (p > 0.05). Less patients implanted with the two trifocal IOLs required a near addition than patients with the ERV IOL. CONCLUSIONS: All the tested IOLs provided good visual outcome, reading performance, and spectacle independence after cataract surgery. While trifocal IOLs gave better near visual acuity results, the ERV IOL provided better contrast sensitivity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Extended range of vision; Intraocular lens; Multifocal; Reading performance; Trifocal
Authors: Jose Juan Esteve-Taboada; Alberto Domínguez-Vicent; Antonio J Del Águila-Carrasco; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Max Rasp; Alexander Bachernegg; Orang Seyeddain; Josef Ruckhofer; Martin Emesz; Josef Stoiber; Günther Grabner; Alois K Dexl Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Thomas Kohnen; Michael Herzog; Eva Hemkeppler; Sabrina Schönbrunn; Nina De Lorenzo; Kerstin Petermann; Myriam Böhm Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Javier Mendicute; Alexander Kapp; Pierre Lévy; Gero Krommes; Alfonso Arias-Puente; Mark Tomalla; Elena Barraquer; Pascal Rozot; Pierre Bouchut Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Bettina Hohberger; Robert Laemmer; Werner Adler; Anselm G M Juenemann; Folkert K Horn Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2007-08-11 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Jose M Martinez-de-la-Casa; Jesús Carballo-Alvarez; Javier Garcia-Bella; Jose M Vazquez-Molini; Laura Morales; Juan C Sanz-Fernandez; Vicente Polo; Julián García-Feijoo Journal: Eur J Ophthalmol Date: 2017 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 2.597
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