OBJECTIVES: To compare visual outcomes and clinical performance of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: This prospective, consecutive, nonrandomized, comparative study of 6-month duration included assessment of 160 eyes of 80 patients (40 patients in each group). The patients had bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of a trifocal (FineVision Micro F; PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL) in both eyes. Ophthalmological evaluation included measurement of monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance VA (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate VA (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA), uncorrected near VA (UNVA) and distance-corrected near VA (DCNVA). Analysis of point-spread function and modulation transfer function was also performed postoperatively, and quality of vision and spectacle-dependence questionnaires were assessed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in monocular UDVA (P=0.65), CDVA (P=0.82), and binocular UDVA (P=0.81). The monocular UIVA, monocular DCIVA, and binocular UIVA were also comparable among the two groups (P=0.70, 0.74, and 0.81, respectively). Monocular UNVA, DCNVA, and binocular UNVA were statistically and significantly better for the trifocal group than for the EDOF (P=0.01, P=0.009, and P=0.001, respectively). There were no differences in visual symptoms and quality among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal IOL had a clear advantage over EDOF IOLs in near VA, while both IOLs showed excellent performance in distance and intermediate VA. Both IOLs provided high percentage of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction with minimal level of disturbing photic phenomena.
OBJECTIVES: To compare visual outcomes and clinical performance of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: This prospective, consecutive, nonrandomized, comparative study of 6-month duration included assessment of 160 eyes of 80 patients (40 patients in each group). The patients had bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of a trifocal (FineVision Micro F; PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium) or EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL) in both eyes. Ophthalmological evaluation included measurement of monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance VA (CDVA), uncorrected intermediate VA (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA), uncorrected near VA (UNVA) and distance-corrected near VA (DCNVA). Analysis of point-spread function and modulation transfer function was also performed postoperatively, and quality of vision and spectacle-dependence questionnaires were assessed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in monocular UDVA (P=0.65), CDVA (P=0.82), and binocular UDVA (P=0.81). The monocular UIVA, monocular DCIVA, and binocular UIVA were also comparable among the two groups (P=0.70, 0.74, and 0.81, respectively). Monocular UNVA, DCNVA, and binocular UNVA were statistically and significantly better for the trifocal group than for the EDOF (P=0.01, P=0.009, and P=0.001, respectively). There were no differences in visual symptoms and quality among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal IOL had a clear advantage over EDOF IOLs in near VA, while both IOLs showed excellent performance in distance and intermediate VA. Both IOLs provided high percentage of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction with minimal level of disturbing photic phenomena.