Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Ophthalmology 1/2021

01-01-2021 | Cataract | Original Paper

Real-world evaluation of visual results and patient satisfaction for extended range of focus intraocular lenses compared to trifocal lenses

Authors: Laureano A. Rementería-Capelo, Jorge L. García-Pérez, Juan Gros-Otero, Virginia Carrillo, Juan Pérez-Lanzac, Inés Contreras

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To report visual outcomes and patient-perceived satisfaction after trifocal or extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in a real-world scenario.

Methods

Three months after bilateral cataract surgery, corrected and uncorrected visual acuity for far, intermediate and near distances and binocular defocus curves and contrast sensitivity were measured. The patients also completed the Catquest SF-9 questionnaire and reported on dysphotopsia and spectacle use.

Results

There were 23 patients in the Symfony, 32 patients in the Finevision and 36 patients in the Panoptix group. The percentage of eyes receiving a toric IOL was 41.2%. There were no differences in uncorrected binocular visual acuities, save for near vision, which was lower in the Symfony group. Binocular defocus curves for the trifocal IOLS were almost identical, while vision achieved with the Symfony IOL was significantly lower starting at − 1.5 D defocus. Contrast sensitivity, as well as the perception of halos and glare and the difficulty for night-driving was similar for all groups, except for contrast sensitivity at 6 cycles per degree, which was lower in the Symfony group compared to both Finevision and Panoptix. For near vision, only 47.6% of the Symfony patients reported being completely spectacle-free, compared to 93.3% and 94.4% for the Finevision and Panoptix groups.

Conclusions

Clinically relevant differences were only detected for near vision, with lower values for EDOF IOLs. In order to achieve patient satisfaction, it is imperative to explain the results expected with each IOL; for EDOF IOLs, patients should be advised that they may require near-spectacle correction.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P et al (2014) Clinical outcomes with a trifocal intraocular lens: a multicenter study. J Refract Surg 30:762–768CrossRef Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P et al (2014) Clinical outcomes with a trifocal intraocular lens: a multicenter study. J Refract Surg 30:762–768CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gatinel D, Pagnoulle C, Houbrechts Y, Gobin L (2011) Design and qualification of a diffractive trifocal optical profile for intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:2060–2067CrossRef Gatinel D, Pagnoulle C, Houbrechts Y, Gobin L (2011) Design and qualification of a diffractive trifocal optical profile for intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:2060–2067CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Alba-Bueno F, Vega F, Millan MS (2014) Halos and multifocal intraocular lenses: origin and interpretation. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 89:397–404CrossRef Alba-Bueno F, Vega F, Millan MS (2014) Halos and multifocal intraocular lenses: origin and interpretation. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 89:397–404CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gibbons A, Ali TK, Waren DP, Donaldson KE (2016) Causes and correction of dissatisfaction after implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 10:1965–1970CrossRef Gibbons A, Ali TK, Waren DP, Donaldson KE (2016) Causes and correction of dissatisfaction after implantation of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 10:1965–1970CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gomez ML (2014) Measuring the quality of vision after cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 25:3–11CrossRef Gomez ML (2014) Measuring the quality of vision after cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 25:3–11CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Monaco G, Gari M, Di CF et al (2017) Visual performance after bilateral plantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: Trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:737–747CrossRef Monaco G, Gari M, Di CF et al (2017) Visual performance after bilateral plantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: Trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:737–747CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos M (2018) A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 28:182–187CrossRef Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos M (2018) A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 28:182–187CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Aramburu A, Ruiz-Santos M (2017) Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27:460–465CrossRef Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Aramburu A, Ruiz-Santos M (2017) Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27:460–465CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C (2018) A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 34:507–514CrossRef Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C (2018) A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 34:507–514CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O et al (2018) Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256:1913–1922CrossRef Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O et al (2018) Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256:1913–1922CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Gundersen KG, Potvin R (2017) Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1081–1087CrossRef Gundersen KG, Potvin R (2017) Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1081–1087CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Alio JL, Montalban R, Pena-Garcia P et al (2013) Visual outcomes of a trifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens with microincision cataract surgery. J Refract Surg 29:756–761CrossRef Alio JL, Montalban R, Pena-Garcia P et al (2013) Visual outcomes of a trifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens with microincision cataract surgery. J Refract Surg 29:756–761CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Attia MS, Auffarth GU, Khoramnia R et al (2015) Near and intermediate reading performance of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens using a reading desk. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2707–2714CrossRef Attia MS, Auffarth GU, Khoramnia R et al (2015) Near and intermediate reading performance of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens using a reading desk. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2707–2714CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Attia MSA, Auffarth GU, Kretz FTA et al (2017) Clinical Evaluation of an Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens With the Salzburg Reading Desk. J Refract Surg 33:664–669CrossRef Attia MSA, Auffarth GU, Kretz FTA et al (2017) Clinical Evaluation of an Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens With the Salzburg Reading Desk. J Refract Surg 33:664–669CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Cochener B (2016) Clinical outcomes of a new extended range of vision intraocular lens: International Multicenter Concerto Study. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1268–1275CrossRef Cochener B (2016) Clinical outcomes of a new extended range of vision intraocular lens: International Multicenter Concerto Study. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1268–1275CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cochener B (2018) Influence of the level of monovision on visual outcome with an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 12:2305–2312CrossRef Cochener B (2018) Influence of the level of monovision on visual outcome with an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 12:2305–2312CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gundersen KG (2018) Rotational stability and visual performance 3 months after bilateral implantation of a new toric extended range of vision intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 12:1269–1278CrossRef Gundersen KG (2018) Rotational stability and visual performance 3 months after bilateral implantation of a new toric extended range of vision intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 12:1269–1278CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Real-world evaluation of visual results and patient satisfaction for extended range of focus intraocular lenses compared to trifocal lenses
Authors
Laureano A. Rementería-Capelo
Jorge L. García-Pérez
Juan Gros-Otero
Virginia Carrillo
Juan Pérez-Lanzac
Inés Contreras
Publication date
01-01-2021
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Keyword
Cataract
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01563-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

International Ophthalmology 1/2021 Go to the issue