Trifocal intraocular lenses versus bifocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction among participants with presbyopia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zamora-de La Cruz D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7388867 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6463930 | biostudies-literature
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: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: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:Bifocal and multifocal optical devices are intended to get images into focus from objects placed at different distances from the observer. Spectacles, contact lenses, and intraocular lenses can meet the requirements to provide such a solution. Contact lenses provide unique characteristics as a platform for implementing bifocality and multifocality. Compared to spectacles, they are closer to the eye, providing a wider field of view, less distortion, and their use is more consistent as they are not so easily removed along the day. In addition, contact lenses are also minimally invasive, can be easily exchangeable, and, therefore, suitable for conditions in which surgical procedures are not indicated. Contact lenses can remain centered with the eye despite eye movements, providing the possibility for simultaneous imaging from different object distances. The main current indications for bifocal and multifocal contact lenses include presbyopia correction in adult population and myopia control in children. Considering the large numbers of potential candidates for optical correction of presbyopia and the demographic trends in myopia, the potential impact of contact lenses for presbyopia and myopia applications is undoubtedly tremendous. However, the ocular characteristics and expectations vary significantly between young and older candidates and impose different challenges in fitting bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for the correction of presbyopia and myopia control. This review presents the recent developments in material platforms, optical designs, simulated visual performance, and the clinical performance assessment of bifocal and multifocal contact lenses for presbyopia correction and/or myopia progression control.
| S-EPMC7152962 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5368599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the visual outcomes and subjective experience of three intraocular lenses (IOL) implant strategies. Retrospective comparative study. This study comprised patients who underwent phacoemulsification and bilateral implantation of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (ZXR00; EDOF group), blended implantation of EDOF and bifocal IOL (ZXR00/ZLB00; blended group), and bilateral implantation of trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri 839MP; trifocal group). The outcomes included visual acuity (VA), visual defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, quality of life, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction. Follow-up was performed 3 months after the surgery. This study included 114 eyes of 57 patients (20 in EDOF group; 16 in blended group; 21 in trifocal group). Patients in the three groups had high quality of life, patient satisfaction, and good contrast sensitivity. The EDOF group had the worst near VA, but the visual quality was the best. The blended group had good VA and slight photic disturbance. The trifocal group obtained the best whole range of VA, but the photic disturbance was significantly severe than the EDOF group. Both the blended and trifocal groups achieved high spectacle independence, but some patients in the EDOF group need spectacle when dealing with close-range tasks.
| S-EPMC9666430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The comparative efficacy of trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) remained uncertain among patients undergoing cataract surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to answer this question. PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched to capture relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Visual acuity (VA) and patient's satisfaction were regarded as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included residual sphere, spherical equivalence, residual cylinder, posterior capsular opacification (PCO), spectacle independence, and other complications. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan 5.2.0. A total of 9 studies (11 RCTs) with 297 participants (558 eyes) were included. Meta-analysis showed significant differences between trifocal and bifocal IOLs in the uncorrected near VA (mean difference [MD], -0.008; 95% confidence interval [Cl], -0.015 to -0.001; P = 0.028) and uncorrected intermediate VA (MD, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02; P < 0.01). Trifocal IOLs were associated with decreased PCO incidence when compared to bifocal IOLs (relative risk [RR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.95; P = 0.03). Trifocal IOLs may be superior to bifocal IOLs because of its improved intermediate VA and reduced incidence of PCO.
| S-EPMC8514957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPresbyopia has become a global disease affecting the world's aging population. Among various treatments, cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation have become the most popular and common methods of presbyopia correction. During the twentieth century, IOLs have underwent significant innovation and advancements to meet the patients' high demands for functional vision at all distances.Main textTo meet the increasing needs for excellent near and intermediate vision for daily activities, some premium IOLs with more than one focus have been developed, for example, the refractive MfIOLs, diffractive MfIOLs, extended depth of field (EDOF) IOLs, and accommodating IOLs (AIOLs) were introduced to meet this need. In addition, the add-on MfIOLs have been explored as promising supplementary IOLs for pseudophakic presbyopia. When selecting the MfIOLs, the IOLs' features, patients' characteristics, preoperative eye conditions, and treatment expectations should be considered.ConclusionsIn this review, we focus on the multifocal IOLs (MfIOLs) commonly used for presbyopia correction and systematically summarized their optical designs and clinical outcomes. More evidence-based studies are required to provide guidelines for MfIOL selection, provide maximum visual benefits, and develop personalized visual solutions in the future.
| S-EPMC10577869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate clinical outcomes of bilateral implantation of diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and extended depth of focus IOLs in Koreans. The clinical outcomes of cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of PanOptix, FineVision, Symfony, and MiniWell were evaluated. Uncorrected distant, intermediate (80 cm, 60 cm), near (40 cm) visual acuity, defocus curve, manifest refraction, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations, quality of vision, spectacle independence, and subjective satisfaction at postoperative 3 months were assessed. A total of 136 eyes in 68 patients were included in the analyses. PanOptix and FineVision performed better visual acuity compared to Symfony and MiniWell at 40 cm distance. Defocus curve showed broad range of vision in PanOptix and FineVision with visual acuity of more than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution at -2.5 diopter (D) of defocus power, while Symfony and MiniWell presented excellent intermediate vision without a dip at defocus power of -0.5 D to -1.0 D. Glare, halo, and starburst were significantly less in MiniWell compared to others. In conclusion, all four IOLs presented satisfactory clinical outcomes. PanOptix and FineVision provided good near and intermediate vision, while Symfony and MiniWell provided good intermediate vision. MiniWell induced little dysphotopsia.
| S-EPMC9571716 | biostudies-literature