PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the performance of two diffractive trifocal and one extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: In this 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, comparative study, patients undergoing routine cataract surgery were randomized to receive one of two trifocal IOLs (AcrySof IQ PanOptix; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, or FineVision Micro F; PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or an EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL). There were 20 patients in each group. The primary outcome was binocular and monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuity. The secondary outcomes were quality of vision and aberrometry. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in either monocular (P = .717) or binocular (P = .837) UDVA. Monocular and binocular UNVA were statistically and significantly better for both trifocal lenses than for the EDOF IOL (P = .002). The percentage of patients with J2 UNVA was 52.5% monocularly and 70% binocularly for the TECNIS Symfony IOL, 81.5% monocularly and 100% binocularly for the AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL, and 82.5% monocularly and 95% binocularly for the FineVision Micro F IOL. There was no significant difference in binocular UIVA between groups; VA was better than 0.6 in 55%, 53%, and 35% of patients with the TECNIS Symfony, AcrySof IQ Pan-Optix, and FineVision Micro F IOLs, respectively. Overall, 90% patients achieved spectacle independence. There were no differences in visual symptoms and aberrometry among groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three IOLs provided good visual acuity at all distances, a high percentage of spectacle independence, and little or no impact of visual symptoms on the patients' daily functioning. Near vision was statistically better for both trifocal IOLs compared to the EDOF IOL. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):507-514.]. Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the performance of two diffractive trifocal and one extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: In this 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, comparative study, patients undergoing routine cataract surgery were randomized to receive one of two trifocal IOLs (AcrySof IQ PanOptix; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, or FineVision Micro F; PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or an EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL). There were 20 patients in each group. The primary outcome was binocular and monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuity. The secondary outcomes were quality of vision and aberrometry. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in either monocular (P = .717) or binocular (P = .837) UDVA. Monocular and binocular UNVA were statistically and significantly better for both trifocal lenses than for the EDOF IOL (P = .002). The percentage of patients with J2 UNVA was 52.5% monocularly and 70% binocularly for the TECNIS Symfony IOL, 81.5% monocularly and 100% binocularly for the AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL, and 82.5% monocularly and 95% binocularly for the FineVision Micro F IOL. There was no significant difference in binocular UIVA between groups; VA was better than 0.6 in 55%, 53%, and 35% of patients with the TECNIS Symfony, AcrySof IQ Pan-Optix, and FineVision Micro F IOLs, respectively. Overall, 90% patients achieved spectacle independence. There were no differences in visual symptoms and aberrometry among groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three IOLs provided good visual acuity at all distances, a high percentage of spectacle independence, and little or no impact of visual symptoms on the patients' daily functioning. Near vision was statistically better for both trifocal IOLs compared to the EDOF IOL. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):507-514.]. Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Peter Žiak; Juraj Halička; Peter Mojžiš; Karolína Kapitánová; Javorka Michal; David P Piñero Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 2.031
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