PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes of 2 diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs), a panfocal model and a trifocal model, after femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective comparative case series. METHODS: This study comprised patients who had bilateral implantation of a Panoptix (panfocal) or AT LISA (trifocal) IOL. Exclusion criteria were previous ocular surgery, corneal astigmatism greater than 1.50 diopters, ocular pathology, and corneal abnormalities. Postoperative examinations included visual acuity at 4 m, 40 cm, 60 cm (panfocal), and 80 cm (trifocal); monocular distance-corrected defocus testing; and contrast sensitivity. A quality-of-vision questionnaire was also administered. RESULTS: The study comprised 80 patients. There was no significant difference in visual acuity (>0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) at any distance between the 2 IOLs (P > .05). The defocus curve of the panfocal IOL (0.01 logMAR) showed significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm compared with the trifocal IOL (0.16 logMAR) (P < .001). There was no significant between-group difference in the defocus curve at other distances (P > .05). The contrast sensitivity under photopic, mesopic, and mesopic conditions with glare was similar between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs provided excellent distance, intermediate, and near vision. The lenses appear to be equally good options for patients with intermediate vision needs at their preferred foci, while the panfocal IOL might be better for patients with closer vision requirements at 60 cm compared to the trifocal IOL at 80 cm. Both yielded high spectacle independence with comparable contrast sensitivity and high patient satisfaction, despite some optical phenomena.
PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcomes of 2 diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs), a panfocal model and a trifocal model, after femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective comparative case series. METHODS: This study comprised patients who had bilateral implantation of a Panoptix (panfocal) or AT LISA (trifocal) IOL. Exclusion criteria were previous ocular surgery, corneal astigmatism greater than 1.50 diopters, ocular pathology, and corneal abnormalities. Postoperative examinations included visual acuity at 4 m, 40 cm, 60 cm (panfocal), and 80 cm (trifocal); monocular distance-corrected defocus testing; and contrast sensitivity. A quality-of-vision questionnaire was also administered. RESULTS: The study comprised 80 patients. There was no significant difference in visual acuity (>0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) at any distance between the 2 IOLs (P > .05). The defocus curve of the panfocal IOL (0.01 logMAR) showed significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm compared with the trifocal IOL (0.16 logMAR) (P < .001). There was no significant between-group difference in the defocus curve at other distances (P > .05). The contrast sensitivity under photopic, mesopic, and mesopic conditions with glare was similar between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs provided excellent distance, intermediate, and near vision. The lenses appear to be equally good options for patients with intermediate vision needs at their preferred foci, while the panfocal IOL might be better for patients with closer vision requirements at 60 cm compared to the trifocal IOL at 80 cm. Both yielded high spectacle independence with comparable contrast sensitivity and high patient satisfaction, despite some optical phenomena.
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: André Lins de Medeiros; Flavio Jones Saraiva; Camila Ishii Iguma; Danilo Varela Kniggendorf; Guilherme Alves; Mario Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves; Cesar Vilar; Antonio Francisco Pimenta Motta; Pedro Carlos Carricondo; Celso Takashi Nakano; Walton Nosé; Wilson Takashi Hida Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2019-08-29
Authors: Alejandro Gonzalez-De la Rosa; Jose Navarro-Partida; Juan Carlos Altamirano-Vallejo; Gerardo Daniel Jauregui-Garcia; Ricardo Acosta-Gonzalez; Miguel Angel Ibanez-Hernandez; Guadalupe Fernando Mora-Gonzalez; Juan Armendáriz-Borunda; Arturo Santos Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Virgilio Galvis; Luis C Escaf; Luis J Escaf; Alejandro Tello; Lisi D Rodríguez; Ruth Lapid-Gortzak; Néstor I Carreño; Rubén D Berrospi; Camilo A Niño; Andreas Viberg; Paul A Camacho Journal: J Optom Date: 2021-10-18
Authors: Joaquín Fernández; José F Alfonso Sánchez; Mark Nieradzik; Beatriz Valcárcel; Noemí Burguera; Alexander Kapp Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 2.086