| Literature DB >> 33519183 |
Dandapani Ramamurthy1, Abhay Vasavada2, Prema Padmanabhan3, Jagadesh C Reddy4, Naren Shetty5, Arindam Dey6, Rachapalle Reddi Sudhir3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a presbyopia-correcting trifocal intraocular lens (IOL), AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® (TFNT00), in an Indian population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational, single-arm, post-marketing study included 67 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of TFNT00 across five Indian sites. Postoperative outcomes were assessed at 3 months after second eye surgery. Effectiveness outcomes included: mean binocular and monocular visual acuity (VA) at distance (4 m), intermediate (60 cm), and near (40 cm); binocular defocus curve; manifest refraction; and subjective symptom questionnaire evaluation. Safety outcomes included the rate of ocular adverse events and mesopic contrast sensitivity.Entities:
Keywords: IOL; PanOptix; cataract surgery; intraocular lens; multifocal; non-apodized
Year: 2021 PMID: 33519183 PMCID: PMC7837564 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S279001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Patient disposition.
Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics of Patient Study Population (All-Implanted Analysis Set)
| Parameters | TFNT00 (N = 73) | |
|---|---|---|
| <65 | 48 (65.8) | |
| ≥65 | 25 (34.2) | |
| Mean ± SD | 58.5 ± 11.46 | |
| Median | 60 | |
| (minimum, maximum) | (28, 82) | |
| Female | 39 (53.4) | |
| Male | 34 (46.6) | |
| Asian (Indian) | 73 (100.0) | |
| Monocular BCDVA (logMAR) | 0.43 ± 0.267 | 0.27 ± 0.147 |
| Sphere (D) | –0.87 ± 2.430 | –0.32 ± 1.937 |
| Cylinder (D) | 0.52 ± 0.611 | 0.40 ± 0.403 |
| MRSE (D) | –0.65 ± 2.344 | –0.16 ± 1.897 |
| Pupil size (mm) | 4.05 ± 0.786 | 4.08 ± 0.832 |
| Axial length (mm) | 23.31 ± 0.854 | 23.27 ± 0.857 |
| Anterior chamber depth (mm) | 3.29 ± 0.331 | 3.23 ± 0.330 |
| Corneal thickness (µm) | 525.4 ± 30.66 | 526.9 ± 32.79 |
| Lens thickness (mm) | 4.16 ± 0.416 | 4.25 ± 0.416 |
Note: Baseline refers to preoperative.
Abbreviations: BCDVA, best-corrected distance visual acuity; D, diopter; MRSE, manifest refraction spherical equivalent; N, number of eyes in the treatment group; SD, standard deviation.
Descriptive Statistics for Photopic Binocular VAs at 3 Months (logMAR) (All-Implanted Analysis Set)
| VA | N | Mean ± SD | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| BCDVA | 67 | −0.052 ± 0.0933 | –0.074 to –0.029 |
| DCIVA | 66 | 0.039 ± 0.1149 | 0.011 to 0.067 |
| DCNVA | 66 | 0.061 ± 0.1090 | 0.034 to 0.087 |
| UCDVA | 67 | 0.011 ± 0.1083 | –0.015 to 0.038 |
| UCIVA | 66 | 0.055 ± 0.1024 | 0.030 to 0.081 |
| UCNVA | 66 | 0.092 ± 0.1273 | 0.061 to 0.124 |
Note: VA outcomes include a patient with a macular hole adverse event.
Abbreviations: BCDVA, best-corrected distance visual acuity; CI, confidence interval; DCIVA, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity; DCNVA, distance-corrected near visual acuity; N, number of patients in the treatment group; SD, standard deviation; UCDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; UCIVA, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; UCNVA, uncorrected near visual acuity; VA, visual acuity.
Figure 2Categorical statistics for photopic binocular (A) distance-corrected and (B) uncorrected VAs at 3 months (logMAR) (all-implanted analysis set).
Figure 3(A) Mean binocular defocus curve with 95% confidence intervals at 3 months (logMAR); (B) by postoperative pupil size category (best-case analysis set).
Figure 4Subjective symptom questionnaire at 3 months (all-implanted analysis set). Patients were asked (A) “During the past 7 days, how satisfied are you with your vision for seeing objects?”; (B) “During the past 7 days, how often do you wear eyeglasses or contact lenses for seeing objects?”; (C) “How often did you experience halos?”; and (D) “How severe were these halos?”.
Adverse Events and Secondary Surgical Interventions (Safety Analysis Set)
| First Eye (n = 73) | Second Eye (n = 68) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preferred term | n (%) | E | n (%) | E |
| Posterior capsule opacification | 4a (5.5) | 4 | 2a (2.9) | 2 |
| Macular fibrosis | 3 (4.1) | 3 | 1 (1.5) | 1 |
| Punctate keratitis | 1 (1.4) | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Glare | 1 (1.4) | 1 | 1 (1.5) | 1 |
| Macular holeb | 1 (1.4) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Ocular hyperemia | 1 (1.4) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Retinal injury | 1 (1.4) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Retinal pigment epitheliopathy | 0 | 0 | 1 (1.5) | 1 |
| Vision blurred | 1 (1.4) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Vitreous detachment | 1 (1.4) | 1 | 1 (1.5) | 1 |
| Vision blurred | 1 (1.4) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | |||
| None | 69 (94.5) | 66 (97.1) | ||
| Clinically nonsignificant | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.5) | ||
| Clinically significant | 1 (1.4) | 1 (1.5) | ||
| Clinically significant requiring Nd:YAG treatment | 2 (2.7) | 0 | ||
| Posterior capsulotomy | 0 | 0 | ||
Notes: aTwo first eyes and one second eye had events described as posterior capsular plaques. bSerious adverse device effect.
Abbreviations: E, event; Nd:YAG, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet; PCO, posterior capsular opacity.
Figure 5Mean binocular mesopic contrast sensitivity with or without glare (log units) (best-case analysis set).