Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens

André Lins de Medeiros, André Gustavo de Araújo Rolim, Antonio Francisco Pimenta Motta, Bruna Vieira Ventura, César Vilar, Mário Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves, Pedro Carlos Carricondo, Wilson Takashi Hida, André Lins de Medeiros, André Gustavo de Araújo Rolim, Antonio Francisco Pimenta Motta, Bruna Vieira Ventura, César Vilar, Mário Augusto Pereira Dias Chaves, Pedro Carlos Carricondo, Wilson Takashi Hida

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the visual outcomes and subjective visual quality between bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens, Alcon Acrysof IQ® PanOptix® TNFT00 (group A), and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus lens, J&J Tecnis Symfony® ZXR00 with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens, J&J Vision Tecnis® ZMB00 (group B).

Methods: This prospective, nonrandomized, consecutive, comparative study included the assessment of 40 eyes in 20 patients implanted with multifocal intraocular lens. Exclusion criteria were existence of any corneal, retina, or optic nerve disease, previous eye surgery, illiteracy, previous refractive surgery, high axial myopia, expected postoperative corneal astigmatism of >1.00 cylindrical diopter (D), and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Binocular visual acuity was tested in all cases. Ophthalmological evaluation included the measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), with the analysis of contrast sensitivity (CS), and visual defocus curve.

Results: Postoperative UDVA was 0.01 and -0.096 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; postoperative CDVA was -0.07 and -0.16 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; UIVA was 0.14 and 0.20 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively; UNVA was -0.03 and 0.11 logMAR (p<0.01) in groups A and B, respectively. Under photopic conditions group B had better CS at low frequencies with and without glare.

Conclusion: Both groups promoted good quality of vision for long, intermediate, and short distances. Group B exhibited a better performance for very short distances and for intermediate and long distances ≥-1.50 D of vergence. Group A exhibited a better performance for UIVA at 60 cm and for UNVA at 40 cm.

Keywords: cataract; multifocal; pseudophakia; trifocal.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Photopic without glare situation comparison between TFNT00 and ZXR00/ZMB00 lenses. Notes:*Statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Acrysof IQ® Panoptix® TFNT00: Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA); Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 and Tecnis® ZMB00: Johnson&Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA. Abbreviation: cpd, cycles per degree.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Photopic with glare situation comparison between Acrysof IQ Panoptix TFNT00 and Tecnis Symfony ZXR00/Tecnis ZMB00 lenses. Notes:*Statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Acrysof IQ® Panoptix® TFNT00: Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA); Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 and Tecnis® ZMB00: Johnson&Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA. Abbreviation: cpd, cycles per degree.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mesopic without glare situation comparison between Acrysof IQ Panoptix TFNT00 and Tecnis Symfony ZXR00/Tecnis ZMB00 lenses. Notes:*Statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Acrysof IQ® Panoptix® TFNT00: Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA); Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 and Tecnis® ZMB00: Johnson&Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA. Abbreviation: cpd, cycles per degree.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Binocular defocus curve of Acrysof IQ Panoptix TFNT00 and Tecnis Symfony ZXR00/Tecnis ZMB00 lenses, with distance correction in place. Notes:*Statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Acrysof IQ® Panoptix® TFNT00: Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA); Tecnis® Symfony® ZXR00 and Tecnis® ZMB00: Johnson&Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA.

References

    1. Maxwell WA, Cionni RJ, Lehmann RP, Modi SS. Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power randomized multicenter clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(12):2054–2061.
    1. Nishi T, Taketani F, Ueda T, Ogata N. Comparisons of amplitude of pseudoaccommodation with aspheric yellow, spheric yellow, and spheric clear monofocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2013;7:2159–2164.
    1. Gundersen KG, Potvin R. Comparative visual performance with mono-focal and multifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2013;7:1979–1985.
    1. Yamauchi T, Tabuchi H, Takase K, Ohsugi H, Ohara Z, Kiuchi Y. Comparison of visual performance of multifocal intraocular lenses with same material monofocal intraocular lenses. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e68236.
    1. Ye P-P, Li X, Yao K. Visual outcome and optical quality after bilateral implantation of aspheric diffractive multifocal, aspheric monofocal and spherical monofocal intraocular lenses: a prospective comparison. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013;6(3):300–306.
    1. Bartol-Puyal F de A, Talavero P, Giménez G, et al. Reading and quality of life differences between Tecnis ZCB00 monofocal and Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017;27(4):443–453.
    1. Liang J-L, Tian F, Zhang H, Teng H. Combination of toric and multifocal intraocular lens implantation in bilateral cataract patients with unilateral astigmatism. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(12):1766–1771.
    1. el-Maghraby A, Marzouky A, Gazayerli E, Van der Karr M, DeLuca M. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses. Visual and refractive comparisons. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992;18(2):147–152.
    1. Vanderschueren I, Zeyen T, D’heer B. Multifocal IOL implantation: 16 cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991;75(2):88–91.
    1. Slagsvold JE. 3M diffractive multifocal intraocular lens: eight year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26(3):402–407.
    1. de Vries NE, Webers CAB, Touwslager WRH, et al. Dissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):859–865.
    1. Gundersen KG, 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 Auckl NZ. 2016;10:805–811.
    1. Chaves MAPD, Hida WT, Tzeliks PF, et al. Comparative study on optical performance and visual outcomes between two diffractive multifocal lenses: AMO Tecnis ® ZMB00 and AcrySof ® IQ ReSTOR ® Multifocal IOL SN6AD1. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2016;79(3):171–176.
    1. Mojzis P, Studeny P, Werner L, Piñero DP. Late opacification of a hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens in Europe. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2016;26(2):e24–e26.
    1. Mojzis P, Studeny P, Werner L, Piñero DP. Opacification of a hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens with a hydrophobic surface after air injection in Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in a patient with Fuchs dystrophy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(3):485–488.
    1. Werner L, Stover JC, Schwiegerling J, Das KK. Effects of intraocular lens opacification on light scatter, stray light, and overall optical quality/performance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(7):3239–3247.
    1. Carson D, Xu Z, Alexander E, Choi M, Zhao Z, Hong X. Optical bench performance of 3 trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(9):1361–1367.
    1. Schmickler S, Bautista CP, Goes F, Shah S, Wolffsohn JS. Clinical evaluation of a multifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(12):1560–1564.
    1. Cillino G, Casuccio A, Pasti M, Bono V, Mencucci R, Cillino S. Working-age cataract patients: visual results, reading performance, and quality of life with three diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):34–44.
    1. Gatinel D, Loicq J. Clinically relevant optical properties of bifocal, trifocal, and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 2016;32(4):273–280.
    1. Cochener B, Concerto Study Group Clinical outcomes of a new extended range of vision intraocular lens: International Multicenter Concerto Study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(9):1268–1275.
    1. Kaymak H, Höhn F, Breyer DRH, et al. [Functional results 3 months after implantation of an “extended range of vision” intraocular lens] Funktionelle Ergebnisse 3 Monate nach Implantation einer “Extended-Range-of-Vision”. Intraokularlinse Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2016;233(8):923–927. German.
    1. Wang M, Corpuz CCC, Fujiwara M, Tomita M. Visual and optical performances of multifocal intraocular lenses with three different near additions: 6-month follow-up. Open Ophthalmol J. 2015;9:1–7.
    1. Hida WT, Motta AFP, Kara-José Júnior N, et al. Comparison between OPD-scan results and visual outcomes of Tecnis ZM900 and Restor SN60D3 diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2008;71(6):788–792.
    1. Lee S, Choi M, Xu Z, Zhao Z, Alexander E, Liu Y. Optical bench performance of a novel trifocal intraocular lens compared with a multifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ. 2016;10:1031–1038.
    1. TECNIS_ Symfony Extended Range of Vision IOL, Z310939, Rev. 03 [package insert] Santa Ana, CA: Abbott Medical Optics, Inc; [Accessed February 2, 2017]. Revision date: March 10, 2014. Available from: .

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever