Clinical Performance of a Hydrophobic Acrylic Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens in a Japanese Population

Yosai Mori, Kazunori Miyata, Hisaharu Suzuki, Santaro Noguchi, Kazuo Ichikawa, Naoyuki Maeda, Yosai Mori, Kazunori Miyata, Hisaharu Suzuki, Santaro Noguchi, Kazuo Ichikawa, Naoyuki Maeda

Abstract

Introduction: In this study, clinical performance of a hydrophobic acrylic diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with double C-loop haptics was evaluated in Japanese cataract eyes.

Methods: Twenty-three patients had bilateral cataract surgery with the implantation of a trifocal IOL with double C-loop haptics. Postoperative examinations at 6 months included assessing uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) at 5 m, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA) at 80 cm, uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm. Binocular defocus, contrast sensitivity, spectacle independence, symptoms of photic phenomena and quality of vision (QOV) were also observed.

Results: Twenty-three patients received 46 IOLs binocularly. Manifest refraction spherical equivalent was - 0.227 ± 0.385 D (mean ± standard deviation) at 6 months postoperatively. Binocular UDVA, binocular UIVA and binocular UNVA were - 0.101 ± 0.065, - 0.021 ± 0.079 and 0.022 ± 0.095 logMAR units, respectively. Binocular CDVA, binocular DCIVA and binocular DCNVA were - 0.151 ± 0.044, - 0.042 ± 0.067 and - 0.011 ± 0.080 logMAR, respectively. Binocular CDVA of 0.00 logMAR or better was obtained in the defocus from - 3.0 D until + 0.5 D. Only 8.7% of patients required the use of spectacles postoperatively. There were no symptoms of glare, halo and light disturbance in 78.3%, 56.5% and 69.6% of patients, respectively. QOV scores significantly improved postoperatively (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: The hydrophobic acrylic trifocal IOL with double C-loop haptics provides good visual performance at all distances and produces high spectacle independence rate and patient satisfaction.

Trial registration number: NCT04699266 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Keywords: Cataract; Double C-loop; Hydrophobic acrylic IOL; Multifocal IOL; POD F GF; Trifocal IOL.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Outcomes in studies with trifocal IOLs. Cumulative percentage of eyes achieving binocular CDVA and UDVA at A far, C intermediate and E near distances. B Difference on lines in far distance between postoperative UDVA and CDVA. D Spherical equivalent prediction error distribution; F postoperative refractive cylinder distribution
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Binocular defocus curve. Dotted line depicts visual acuity of 0.00 logMAR
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Binocular contrast sensitivity

References

    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. 2011;37(11):2060–2067. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.047.
    1. Nakamura K, Bissen-Miyajima H, Hirasawa M, Ota Y, Oki S, Tanaka M, Minami K. Clinical results of trifocal intraocular lens (Pod F, Pod FT) J Jpn Ophthalmol Soc. 2018;122:281–286.
    1. Nagy ZZ, Popper-Sachetti A, Kiss HJ. Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes between hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lenses sharing the same optical design. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(5):553–561. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.11.034.
    1. Poyales F, Pérez R, López-Brea I, Zhou Y, Rico L, Garzón N. Comparison of visual performance and patient satisfaction outcomes with two trifocal IOLs with similar optical design but different materials. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:3237–3247. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S273641.
    1. Modi S, Lehmann R, Maxwell A, Solomon K, Cionni R, Thompson V, Horn J, Caplan M, Fisher B, Hu JG, Yeu E. Visual and patient-reported outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens compared with those of a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(2):197–207. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.07.015.
    1. Hayashi K, Manabe S, Hayashi H. Visual acuity from far to near and contrast sensitivity in eyes with a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with a low addition power. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:2070–2076. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.07.010.
    1. Bozukova D, Werner L, Mamalis N, et al. Double-C loop platform in combination with hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens materials. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:1490–1502. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.042.
    1. Fukuhara S, Wakita T, Yamada M, Hiratsuka Y, Green J, Oki K. Development of a short version of the visual function questionnaire using item-response theory. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e73084. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073084.
    1. Hiratsuka Y, Yamada M, Akune Y, Murakami A, Okada AA, Yamashita H, Ohashi Y, Yamagishi N, Tamura H, Fukuhara S, Takura T. Assessment of vision-related quality of life among patients with cataracts and the outcomes of cataract surgery using a newly developed visual function questionnaire: the VFQ-J11. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2014;58(5):415–422. doi: 10.1007/s10384-014-0335-3.
    1. Fernández J, Ribeiro FJ, Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Dupps WJ, Jr, Werner L, Srinivasan S, Kohnen T. Standard for collecting and reporting outcomes of IOL-based refractive surgery: update for enhanced monofocal, EDOF, and multifocal IOLs. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(11):1235–1241. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001013.
    1. Bissen-Miyajima H, Ota Y, Hayashi K, Igarashi C, Sasaki N. Results of a clinical evaluation of a trifocal intraocular lens in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2020;64(2):140–149. doi: 10.1007/s10384-019-00712-4.
    1. Liu X, Xie L, Huang Y. Comparison of the visual performance after implantation of bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses having an identical platform. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(4):273–280. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20180214-01.
    1. Cillino S, Casuccio A, Di Pace F, Morreale R, Pillitteri F, Cillino G, Lodato G. One-year outcomes with new-generation multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1508–1516. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.04.017.
    1. Zeng M, Liu Y, Liu X, Yuan Z, Luo L, Xia Y, Zeng Y. Aberration and contrast sensitivity comparison of aspherical and monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens eyes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;35:355–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01452.x.
    1. Cao K, Friedman DS, Jin S, Yusufu M, Zhang J, Wang J, Hou S, Zhu G, Wang B, Xiong Y, Li J, Li X, He H, Chai L, Wan XH. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses for age-related cataract patients: a system review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Surv Ophthalmol. 2019;64:647–658. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.02.012.
    1. Xu Z, Cao D, Chen X, Wu S, Wang X, Wu Q. Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0186522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186522.
    1. Jonker SMR, Bauer NJC, Makhotkina NY, Berendschot TTJM, Van Den Biggelaar FJHM, Nuijts RMMA. Comparison of a trifocal intraocular lens with a +3.0 D bifocal IOL: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial presented at the XXXI Congress of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October 2013. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:1631–1640. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.08.011.
    1. Chassain C, Chamard C. Posterior capsule opacification, glistenings and visual outcomes: 3 years after implantation of a new hydrophobic IOL. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2018;41:513–520. doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2017.11.022.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera