Myriam Böhm1, Kerstin Petermann2, Eva Hemkeppler2, Thomas Kohnen3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Schepens Eye Research Institute (Böhm), Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: kohnen@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Patients included in the study had bilateral surgery with implantation of diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive (SegRef), or extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) presbyopia-correcting IOLs. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) and near (DCNVA) visual acuities, defocus curve, and spectacle independence were measured. RESULTS: The UDVA and CDVA were not significantly different between groups (P > .05); however, the EDOF group had worse near CDVA (P < .001). The trifocal and EDOF groups showed better DCIVA than the panfocal and SegRef group at 80 cm (P < .001); the EDOF and panfocal groups had comparable DCIVA at 60 cm (P > .05). Defocus curves showed no significant between-group differences from 4 m to 2 m (P > .05). The EDOF group had better visual acuity from 1 m to 67 cm than the trifocal and SegRef groups and better visual acuity than the panfocal group at 1 m (P > .05). Compared with the other IOLs, the panfocal IOL yielded significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm (P < .001) and the EDOF IOL worse visual acuity at 40 cm (P < .01). There was a significant difference in spectacle independence between the panfocal group and EDOF group (P < .05) but no difference between the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 IOLs provided equally good CDVA. The EDOF IOL yielded slightly better DCIVA but worse DCNVA than the other IOLs. Only the panfocal IOL gave better DCIVA at 50 cm.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS:Patients included in the study had bilateral surgery with implantation of diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive (SegRef), or extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) presbyopia-correcting IOLs. The uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, uncorrected intermediate and near visual acuities, distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) and near (DCNVA) visual acuities, defocus curve, and spectacle independence were measured. RESULTS: The UDVA and CDVA were not significantly different between groups (P > .05); however, the EDOF group had worse near CDVA (P < .001). The trifocal and EDOF groups showed better DCIVA than the panfocal and SegRef group at 80 cm (P < .001); the EDOF and panfocal groups had comparable DCIVA at 60 cm (P > .05). Defocus curves showed no significant between-group differences from 4 m to 2 m (P > .05). The EDOF group had better visual acuity from 1 m to 67 cm than the trifocal and SegRef groups and better visual acuity than the panfocal group at 1 m (P > .05). Compared with the other IOLs, the panfocal IOL yielded significantly better visual acuity at 50 cm (P < .001) and the EDOF IOL worse visual acuity at 40 cm (P < .01). There was a significant difference in spectacle independence between the panfocal group and EDOF group (P < .05) but no difference between the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 IOLs provided equally good CDVA. The EDOF IOL yielded slightly better DCIVA but worse DCNVA than the other IOLs. Only the panfocal IOL gave better DCIVA at 50 cm.
Authors: Emilio Pedrotti; Francesco Carones; Pietro Talli; Erika Bonacci; Federico Selvi; Alice Galzignato; Andrea Besutti; Alessandra De Gregorio; Giorgio Marchini Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2020-10-14