Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shen Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5368599 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Shen Zeren Z Lin Yuchen Y Zhu Yanan Y Liu Xin X Yan Jie J Yao Ke K
Scientific reports 20170328
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 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To compare visual outcomes and performance between bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) Acrysof®PanOptix® TFNT00 and blended implantation of two different near add power bifocal IOLs: Acrysof® Restor® SV25T0 in dominant eye and Acrysof® Restor® SN6AD1 in the nondominant eye.This prospective, nonrandomized, consecutive and comparative study assessed 20 patients (40 eyes) who had bilateral cataract surgery performed using the IOLs described. Patients were divided into groups, bilateral trifocal implant and blended implant. Evaluation included measurement of binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity at 4 m (UDVA, CDVA) and uncorrected intermediate (60 cm) and near (at 40 cm) visual acuity; contrast sensitivity (CS) and visual defocus curve.Postoperative CDVA comparison showed no statistical significance between groups. UDVA was significantly better in the trifocal groups. Under photopic conditions, the trifocal group had better CS in higher frequencies with and without glare. The binocular defocus curve demonstrated a trifocal behavior in both groups, with the bilateral trifocal group exhibiting better performance for intermediate vision.Both lens combinations were able to provide good near, intermediate and distance vision, with the trifocal group showing significantly better performance at intermediate distances and better CS under photopic conditions.
| S-EPMC5546829 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeTo compare the clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses in bilateral cataract and/or refractive lens exchange (RLE) surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Web of Science was performed through October 2016 to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. The primary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), defocus curve, spectacle independence, patient satisfaction and contrast sensitivity. The secondary outcomes were residual sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder and complications.ResultsSix RCTs and 2 cohort studies including 568 eyes (278 in the trifocal group and 290 in the bifocal group) were identified. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in UDVA (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.05 to -0.01, P = 0.005), but the difference (0.03 log MAR) is not clinically significant. Intermediate visual acuity was better in the trifocal IOL group judging from UIVA and defocus curves. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in residual cylinder (WMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.20, P = 0.02), and subgroup AT Lisa tri 839MP trifocal also showed significant better UNVA than bifocal IOLs (WMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.17 to -0.08, P<0.00001). However, no significant differences were observed in UNVA (WMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.02, P = 0.19), spectacle independence (WMD: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.89 to 18.15, P = 0.07), patient satisfaction (WMD: 4.01, 95% CI: 0.07 to 22.72, P = 0.87), residual sphere (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.13, P = 0.74), SE (WMD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.16, P = 0.55) or complications (WMD: 2.08, 95% CI: 0.35 to 12.43, P = 0.42).ConclusionsTrifocal IOL technology (especially AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal) had a clear advantage over bifocal IOLs in intermediate visual acuity, while both trifocal IOLs and bifocal IOLs showed excellent performance in distance visual acuity. AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal could provide better uncorrected near visual acuity than bifocal IOLs. However, more evidence is needed to compare their spectacle independence, higher satisfaction rate, and photic phenomena.
| S-EPMC5657996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose is to compare the outcomes of implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (TIOLs) and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).MethodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov was conducted in March 2020 to identify relevant studies. A meta-analysis of the results was performed. Patients implanted with EDOF IOLs or TIOLs in previous studies were included. The primary outcomes of the study were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and defocus curve.ResultsTIOLs and EDOF IOLs provided comparable binocular UDVA (MD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.04, 0.03, logMAR). However, EDOF IOLs provided better UIVA (MD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.01, logMAR) and worse UNVA (MD: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.14, logMAR) than TIOLs. Fewer patients achieved spectacle independence after implantation of EDOF IOLs (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.87) than after implantation of TIOLs, especially for near vision (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic or mesopic conditions with both IOLs. Patient satisfaction after implantation of both IOLs was high.ConclusionEDOF IOLs and TIOLs provide comparable distance vision. However, EDOF IOLs provide better intermediate vision and worse near vision than TIOLs. The advantages of EDOF IOLs over TIOLs in terms of CS, aberrations, and visual disturbance are not significant. Patients are satisfied with both types of IOLs.
| S-EPMC8731298 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7388867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe compared the efficacy between trifocal and bifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.MethodsThrough PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, we searched potentially relevant articles published from 1990 to 2018. Defocus curves, visual acuities (VAs) were measured as primary outcomes. Spectacle dependence, postoperative refraction, contrast sensitivity (CS), glare, and higher-order aberrations (HOAs) were measured as secondary outcomes. Effects were pooled using random-effects method.ResultsWe included 11 clinical trials, with a total of 787 eyes (395 subjects). The trifocal IOL group showed better binocular distance VA corrected with defocus levels of -0.5, -1.0, -1.5, and -2.5 diopter than the bifocal IOL group (All P ≤ 0.004). The trifocal IOL group showed better monocular uncorrected distance and intermediate VAs (mean difference [MD], -0.04 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07, -0.01; P = 0.006 and MD, -0.07 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.13, -0.01; P = 0.03, respectively). Postoperative refraction, glare, CS, and HOAs were not significantly different from each other.ConclusionThe overall findings indicate that trifocal diffractive IOL implantation is better than the bifocal diffractive IOL in intermediate VA, and provides similar or better in distance and near VAs without any major deterioration in the visual quality.
| S-EPMC6200906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose:To compare the clinical outcomes of echelette extended range of vision (ERV) and diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). Methods:This is a prospective, consecutive, nonrandomized clinical trial. Seventy-three eligible patients (109 eyes) received the implantation of echelette ERV IOL (Tecnis Symfony ZXR00) or diffractive bifocal IOL (Tecnis ZMB00). 1?week, 1?month, and 3?months after surgery, visual acuities at different distances were examined. At 3?months, defocus curves, contrast sensitivities (CSs) with and without glare, optic path difference (OPD) scans, and questionnaires were evaluated. Regression analyses were applied to discover influence factors on postoperative vision. Results:ZXR00 showed better distance (P < 0.05) and intermediate (P < 0.001) visual acuities, while ZMB00 was better at distance-corrected near visual acuity (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses indicated that worse intermediate (P < 0.001) and near vision (P=0.013) of ZMB00 might occur in patients with longer axial length. ZXR00 demonstrated smoother defocus curve and higher CSs. Superior modulation transfer function (MTF) and higher Strehl ratio (P < 0.05) were shown in ZXR00. In questionnaire evaluation, ZXR00 received better outcomes in self-reported vision, Visual Function-14 (VF-14) questionnaire, Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, satisfaction, and recommendation grades. Spectacle dependence did not differ between ZXR00 and ZMB00 statistically. Conclusion:ZXR00 proved to be remarkable in distance and intermediate vision, defocus curve smoothness, CSs, and visual comfort, while ZMB00 achieved better near vision. ZXR00 may attain better near vision if postoperative SE remains slightly negative. Patients with relatively longer axial length might receive less favorable intermediate and near vision after ZMB00 implantation. This trial is registered with ChiCTR-ONC-17011119.
| S-EPMC6778892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo compare the clinical performance of bifocal and trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in cataract surgery, a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials was conducted.MethodsA comprehensive literature retrieval of PubMed, Science Direct and EMBASE was performed in this systematic review. Clinical outcomes included visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction.ResultsThere were 8 RCTs included in this study. The difference of uncorrected near VA (UNVA) between the bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs had no significance [MD = 0.02, 95%CI: (- 0.03,0.06)]. There was no significant difference in the distant-corrected near VA (DCNVA) with MD of 0.04 [95%CI (- 0.02, 0.10)]. Compared with trifocal group, the uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) [MD = 0.09,95%CI:(0.01,0.17)] was significantly worse in the bifocal group. No difference was found in distance-corrected intermediate VA (DCIVA) [MD = 0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.04, 0.23)] between two groups. Analysis on AT LISA subgroup indicated the bifocal group had worse intermediate VA than trifocal group (AT LISA tri 839 M) [MD = 0.18, 95%CI: (0.12, 0.24) for UIVA and MD = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.13, 0.25) for DCIVA]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the uncorrected distance VA (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) [MD = 0.01, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.04) for UDVA; MD = 0.00, 95%CI: (- 0.01,0.01) for CDVA]. The postoperative refraction of bifocal group was similar to that of trifocal group [MD = -0.08, 95% CI: (- 0.19, 0.03) for spherical equivalent; MD = -0.09, 95%CI: (- 0.21, 0.03) for cylinder; MD = -0.09, 95% CI: (- 0.27, 0.08) for sphere]. No difference was found for spectacle independence, posterior capsular opacification (PCO) incidence and patient satisfaction between bifocal IOLs and trifocal IOLs. [RR = 0.89, 95% CI: (0.71, 1.12) for spectacle independence; RR = 1.81, 95% CI: (0.50, 6.54) for PCO incidence; RR = 0.98, 5% CI: (0.86, 1.12) for patient satisfaction].ConclusionPatients receiving trifocal IOLs, especially AT LISA tri 839 M, have a better intermediate VA than those receiving bifocal IOLs. Near and distance visual performance, spectacle independence, postoperative refraction and surgical satisfaction of bifocal IOLs were similar to those of trifocal IOLs.
| S-EPMC6419463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionsThe 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 registrationThe study was retrospectively registered and posted on clinicaltrials.gov at 12/02/2020 (NCT04265846).
| S-EPMC9585875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate clinical outcomes with a premium diffractive-refractive trifocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) over a 12-month period.MethodsMulticentre prospective clinical trial including 227 eyes of 114 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of the AT LISA tri toric 939MP IOL (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). One patient was implanted unilaterally. Outcome measures were: visual acuity, manifest refraction, reading performance, contrast sensitivity, defocus curve, patient satisfaction and subjective quality of vision. Alpins vector analysis was used to evaluate astigmatic changes.Results12-month follow up results of binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity were ?0.3?logMAR in 99.0%, 98.10% and 91.40% of eyes, respectively. 79.7% of eyes had a cylinder value of ±0.50?D at 12 months post-surgery. Contrast sensitivity was in the normal range at 6 months post-surgery. The defocus curve exhibited a smooth transition between far and near foci. Vector analysis showed a mean magnitude of error of -0.16?±?0.48?D. Mean binocular distance-corrected reading visual acuity was 0.15?±?0.13?logRAD at 6 months postoperatively. 93.3%, 89.4% and 84.6% of patients expressed satisfaction (good or very good) with distance, intermediate and near vision, respectively, 12 months after surgery. Most (?95%) patients felt that visual disturbances, including halos, glare, focusing difficulties and depth perception, caused little or no disturbance.ConclusionsThe diffractive-refractive trifocal toric IOL, AT LISA tri toric 939MP, provides effective distance, intermediate and near visual acuity in eyes with corneal astigmatism. Patient satisfaction was high and 98.1% of patients expressed satisfaction with the IOL implanted.
| S-EPMC6328597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess the spectacle independence and satisfaction of subjects after bilateral implantation of the PanOptix® trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) at the time of cataract surgery.DesignSingle site, prospective, single-arm study.MethodsEligible subjects interested in a trifocal IOL to potentially reduce dependence on spectacles for near, intermediate and distance vision were enrolled and followed for 3 months after the second eye surgery. Visual acuity and refractive data were collected 1 month and 3 months postoperative, including the uncorrected and best distance-corrected binocular visual acuities at distance (4m), intermediate (60 cm) and near (40cm). A patient satisfaction and spectacle independence questionnaire were administered at the 3-month visit.ResultsA total of 30 subjects successfully completed the study. Eighty-five percent of eyes (51/60) had a refraction within 0.50 D of plano with ≤ 0.50 D of refractive cylinder. One subject (3%) reported needing glasses for distance work, 3 (10%) for intermediate work and 4 (13%) for near work. Ninety percent or more of all subjects reported never wearing glasses or wearing them only a little at all working distances. Ninety percent or more were able to function without glasses at all 3 working distances all or most of the time. More than ninety percent of subjects reported being "com.pletely" or "mostly" satisfied with their vision without glasses or contact lenses at all three distances and overall.ConclusionA high percentage of patients are likely to achieve spectacle independence for distance, intermediate and near vision with this trifocal IOL.
| S-EPMC8274231 | biostudies-literature