Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zeren Shen, Yuchen Lin, Yanan Zhu, Xin Liu, Jie Yan, Ke Yao, Zeren Shen, Yuchen Lin, Yanan Zhu, Xin Liu, Jie Yan, Ke Yao

Abstract

To assess the visual effects of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) compared to bifocal IOLs in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis of prospective comparative clinical trials (including 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohorts) was conducted. The defocus curves showed a better distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (VA) for the trifocal group (MD -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.05; p < 0.00001), while the VA outcomes showed no significant difference in distance VA (MD -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.01; p = 0.13 for uncorrected distance VA and MD -0.00; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.01; p = 0.78 for distance-corrected distance VA), near VA (MD -0.01; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.04; p = 0.68 for uncorrected near VA and MD -0.01; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.04; p = 0.66 for distance-corrected near VA) or refraction between the two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality yielded less conclusive results. Overall, a patient may achieve better intermediate VA with a trifocal IOL than with a bifocal IOL without any adverse effect on distance or near VA. The findings on contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality were heterogeneous, with no clear results favoring either option.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Figures

Figure 1. Flow chart showing selection of…
Figure 1. Flow chart showing selection of articles.
IOL = intraocular lens; RCTs = randomized controlled trials.
Figure 2. Pooled mean differences (MDs) for…
Figure 2. Pooled mean differences (MDs) for uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) in logMAR by meta-analysis.
(a) Forest plot showing the MD of UDVA comparing trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with bifocal IOL postoperatively (only for RCTs). (b) Forest plot showing MD of CDVA comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL postoperatively (only for RCTs). (c) Forest plot showing the MD of UNVA comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL postoperatively. (d) Forest plot showing the MD of DCNVA comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL postoperatively.

References

    1. Gundersen K. G. & Potvin R. Comparison of visual outcomes and subjective visual quality after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of apodized diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol. 10, 805–811 (2016).
    1. Jonker S. M. et al.. Comparison of a trifocal intraocular lens with a +3.0 D bifocal IOL: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 41, 1631–1640 (2015).
    1. Bilbao-Calabuig R. et al.. Comparison between mix-and-match implantation of bifocal intraocular lenses and bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 32, 659–663 (2016).
    1. Cochener B. Prospective clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 32, 146–151 (2016).
    1. Gundersen K. G. & Potvin R. Comparison of visual outcomes after implantation of diffractive trifocal toric intraocular lens and a diffractive apodized bifocal toric intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 10, 455–461 (2016).
    1. Mojzis P., Kukuckova L., Majerova K., Liehneova K. & Pinero D. P. Comparative analysis of the visual performance after cataract surgery with implantation of a bifocal or trifocal diffractive IOL. J Refract Surgery. 30, 666–672 (2014).
    1. Plaza-Puche A. B. & Alio J. L. Analysis of defocus curves of different modern multifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol. 0 (2016).
    1. Plaza-Puche A. B., Alio J. L., Sala E. & Mojzis P. Impact of low mesopic contrast sensitivity outcomes in different types of modern multifocal intraocular lenses. Euro J Ophthalmol. 0 (2016).
    1. Carson D., Hill W. E., Hong X. & Karakelle M. Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol. 8, 2105–2113 (2014).
    1. Gatinel D. & Houbrechts Y. Comparison of bifocal and trifocal diffractive and refractive intraocular lenses using an optical bench. J Cataract Refract Surg. 39, 1093–1099 (2013).
    1. Cochener B. et al.. Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of a fully diffractive trifocal lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 6, 1421–1427 (2012).
    1. Pepose J. S. et al.. Safety and effectiveness of a new toric presbyopia-correcting posterior chamber silicone intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 41, 295–305 (2015).
    1. Hayashi K., Masumoto M. & Takimoto M. Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes after bilateral implantation of toric intraocular lenses with or without a multifocal component. J Cataract Refract Surg. 41, 73–83 (2015).
    1. Gatinel D., Pagnoulle C., Houbrechts Y. & Gobin L. Design and qualification of a diffractive trifocal optical profile for intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 37, 2060–2067 (2011).
    1. Vryghem J. C. & Heireman S. Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 7, 1957–1965 (2013).
    1. Marques E. F. & Ferreira T. B. Comparison of visual outcomes of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 41, 354–363 (2015).
    1. Moher D., Liberati A. & Tetzlaff J. Group DGAP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 151, 264–269, W64 (2009).
    1. Stroup D. F., Berlin J. A. & Morton S. C. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 283, 2008–2012 (2000).
    1. Jadad A. R., Moore R. A. & Carroll D. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 17, 1–12 (1996).
    1. Wells G. A. et al.. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. Available: [2017 Jan 19].
    1. Cochener B., Lafuma A., Khoshnood B., Courouve L. & Berdeaux G. Comparison of outcomes with multifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis. Clin Ophthalmol. 5, 45–56 (2011).
    1. Begg C. B. & Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 50, 1088–1101 (1994).
    1. Higgins J. P., Thompson S. G., Deeks J. J. & Altman D. G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 327, 557–560 (2003).
    1. DerSimonian R. & Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 28, 105–114 (2007).

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj