PURPOSE: To compare rotational stability, centration and visual outcomes provided by three trifocal lens models that have the same optical zone design but different material, composition, and/or toricity. METHODS: The study included 78 patients with symmetric bilateral intraocular lens implantation. The lenses under evaluation were trifocal intraocular lenses made of hydrophilic acrylic material: a spherical lens 26% hydrophilic acrylic (POD FineVision), a similar lens but having a toric design (POD Toric FineVision), and a trifocal lens 25% hydrophilic acrylic material (FineVision/MicroF). Moreover, the lenses share the same optical zone design. The lenses' rotational stability and centration were measured by means of the PIOLET software, which relies on recording and image processing techniques to determine lens rotation and centration based on slit-lamp images. We also assessed patients' visual quality by means of 25, 40, and 80 cm VA tests. RESULTS: The best centration results were achieved with the POD Toric FineVision model, although the differences were not statistically significant. As for lens rotation, it was below 5° in all cases under study. Regarding VA, all subjects attained at least 0.3 logMAR for far distance uncorrected VA, at 80 cm VA was about 0.2 logMAR, at 40 cm it was above 0.15 logMAR, and at 25 cm it was about 0.3 logMAR for both lens types. CONCLUSION: 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.
PURPOSE: To compare rotational stability, centration and visual outcomes provided by three trifocal lens models that have the same optical zone design but different material, composition, and/or toricity. METHODS: The study included 78 patients with symmetric bilateral intraocular lens implantation. The lenses under evaluation were trifocal intraocular lenses made of hydrophilic acrylic material: a spherical lens 26% hydrophilic acrylic (POD FineVision), a similar lens but having a toric design (POD Toric FineVision), and a trifocal lens 25% hydrophilic acrylic material (FineVision/MicroF). Moreover, the lenses share the same optical zone design. The lenses' rotational stability and centration were measured by means of the PIOLET software, which relies on recording and image processing techniques to determine lens rotation and centration based on slit-lamp images. We also assessed patients' visual quality by means of 25, 40, and 80 cm VA tests. RESULTS: The best centration results were achieved with the POD Toric FineVision model, although the differences were not statistically significant. As for lens rotation, it was below 5° in all cases under study. Regarding VA, all subjects attained at least 0.3 logMAR for far distance uncorrected VA, at 80 cm VA was about 0.2 logMAR, at 40 cm it was above 0.15 logMAR, and at 25 cm it was about 0.3 logMAR for both lens types. CONCLUSION: 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.