Tong Sun1,2, Yiyun Liu1,2, Yufei Gao3, Chuhao Tang1,2, Qianqian Lan1,2,4, Tingting Yang1,2, Xiaorui Zhao1,2, Hong Qi5,6,7. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Beijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of Yunnan University, Kunming, China. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, the People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, China. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. doctorqihong@163.com. 6. Beijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. doctorqihong@163.com. 7. , Present Address: Beijing, P R China. doctorqihong@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess and compare the efficacy, safety, accuracy, predictability and visual quality of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL in eyes with axial myopia. METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with implantation of the diffractive trifocal IOL or the refractive bifocal IOL. Eyes were divided into four groups according to the IOL implanted and axial length. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at far, intermediate and near distances, prediction error of spherical equivalent (SE), contrast sensitivity and aberrations were evaluated three months after surgery. RESULTS: In total, 80 eyes of 80 patients were included: 20 eyes in each group. Three months postoperatively, the corrected distance visual acuity of two trifocal groups were significantly better than the axial myopia bifocal group (P = 0.007 and 0.043). There was no significant difference of postoperative SE (P = 0.478), but the SE predictability of the trifocal IOL was better, whether in axial myopia groups (P = 0.015) or in control groups (P = 0.027). The contrast sensitivity was similar among four groups. The total aberration, higher order aberration and trefoil aberration of bifocal groups were significantly higher (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive trifocal IOL and the refractive bifocal IOL both provided good efficacy, accuracy, predictability and safety for eyes with axial myopia. By contrast, the trifocal IOL had a better performance in corrected distance visual acuity and visual quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered and posted on clinicaltrials.gov at 12/02/2020 (NCT04265846).
BACKGROUND: To assess and compare the efficacy, safety, accuracy, predictability and visual quality of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL in eyes with axial myopia. METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with implantation of the diffractive trifocal IOL or the refractive bifocal IOL. Eyes were divided into four groups according to the IOL implanted and axial length. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at far, intermediate and near distances, prediction error of spherical equivalent (SE), contrast sensitivity and aberrations were evaluated three months after surgery. RESULTS: In total, 80 eyes of 80 patients were included: 20 eyes in each group. Three months postoperatively, the corrected distance visual acuity of two trifocal groups were significantly better than the axial myopia bifocal group (P = 0.007 and 0.043). There was no significant difference of postoperative SE (P = 0.478), but the SE predictability of the trifocal IOL was better, whether in axial myopia groups (P = 0.015) or in control groups (P = 0.027). The contrast sensitivity was similar among four groups. The total aberration, higher order aberration and trefoil aberration of bifocal groups were significantly higher (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive trifocal IOL and the refractive bifocal IOL both provided good efficacy, accuracy, predictability and safety for eyes with axial myopia. By contrast, the trifocal IOL had a better performance in corrected distance visual acuity and visual quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered and posted on clinicaltrials.gov at 12/02/2020 (NCT04265846).
Authors: Li Wang; Mariko Shirayama; Xingxuan Jack Ma; Thomas Kohnen; Douglas D Koch Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Richard N McNeely; Eric Pazo; Andrew Spence; Olivier Richoz; M Andrew Nesbit; Tara C B Moore; Jonathan E Moore Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Julie M Schallhorn; Seth M Pantanelli; Charles C Lin; Zaina N Al-Mohtaseb; Walter Allan Steigleman; Marcony R Santhiago; Timothy W Olsen; Stephen J Kim; Aaron M Waite; Jennifer R Rose-Nussbaumer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Chen-Wei Pan; Pui Yi Boey; Ching-Yu Cheng; Seang-Mei Saw; Wan Ting Tay; Jie Jin Wang; Ava Grace Tan; Paul Mitchell; Tien Yin Wong Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jan Willem Lodewijk Tideman; Jan Roelof Polling; Johannes R Vingerling; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Cathy Williams; Jeremy A Guggenheim; Caroline C W Klaver Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.761