PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of two non-toric diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: In a prospective, comparative case series, patients were randomly allocated to receive bilateral implantation of either the preloaded RayOne Trifocal (Rayner, Worthing, UK) or the FineVision POD F (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). At the 3-month follow-up, the main outcomes were monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate at 80 cm (UIVA, DCIVA), and near at 40 cm (UNVA, DCNVA) visual acuities, refractive outcomes, and defocus curves. Patients' satisfaction in terms of visual disturbance was also evaluated. RESULTS: Each group comprised 30 eyes (15 patients). The mean monocular UDVA was 0.03 ± 0.11 (RayOne Trifocal) and 0.04 ± 0.08 (FineVision POD F) logMAR (P = .605); DCIVA was 0.05 ± 0.13 and 0.05 ± 0.10 logMAR, respectively (P > .999); and DCNVA was 0.02 ± 0.12 and 0.03 ± 0.11 logMAR (P = .742). A better manifest spherical equivalent was found in the RayOne Trifocal than in the FineVision POD F group (P = .035) and depth perception issues were less severe with the RayOne Trifocal IOL (P = .042). There was no significant difference in other photic phenomena between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs provided good visual outcomes at all distances with no differences between the groups. Refractive accuracy was better for the RayOne Trifocal IOL. The results indicated that the new trifocal IOL may represent a safe and effective option for presbyopic patients. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(7):418-425.]. Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of two non-toric diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: In a prospective, comparative case series, patients were randomly allocated to receive bilateral implantation of either the preloaded RayOne Trifocal (Rayner, Worthing, UK) or the FineVision POD F (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). At the 3-month follow-up, the main outcomes were monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate at 80 cm (UIVA, DCIVA), and near at 40 cm (UNVA, DCNVA) visual acuities, refractive outcomes, and defocus curves. Patients' satisfaction in terms of visual disturbance was also evaluated. RESULTS: Each group comprised 30 eyes (15 patients). The mean monocular UDVA was 0.03 ± 0.11 (RayOne Trifocal) and 0.04 ± 0.08 (FineVision POD F) logMAR (P = .605); DCIVA was 0.05 ± 0.13 and 0.05 ± 0.10 logMAR, respectively (P > .999); and DCNVA was 0.02 ± 0.12 and 0.03 ± 0.11 logMAR (P = .742). A better manifest spherical equivalent was found in the RayOne Trifocal than in the FineVision POD F group (P = .035) and depth perception issues were less severe with the RayOne Trifocal IOL (P = .042). There was no significant difference in other photic phenomena between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs provided good visual outcomes at all distances with no differences between the groups. Refractive accuracy was better for the RayOne Trifocal IOL. The results indicated that the new trifocal IOL may represent a safe and effective option for presbyopic patients. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(7):418-425.]. Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.
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