Dataset Information

Comparison of Patient Outcomes following Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose is to compare the outcomes of implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (TIOLs) and extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

A 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.

Results

TIOLs 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.

Conclusion

EDOF 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.

SUBMITTER: Guo Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8731298 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe AT LARA 829MP is a next-generation extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) providing continuous vision over a range of distances. The aim of this prospective multi-centre randomised trial was to compare two EDOF IOLs and one monofocal IOL.MethodsCataract patients between 50 and 80 years were randomised for bilateral implantation with either the AT LARA 829MP (EDOF), the TECNIS Symfony (EDOF) or the CT ASPHINA 409MP (monofocal). Follow-up was at 1 to 2 weeks, 1 month and 4 to 6 months.ResultsA total of 211 patients were randomised and included in the final analysis. Monocular depth of focus was significantly better for AT LARA 829MP eyes compared with that for TECNIS Symfony at all thresholds (p = 0.024, 0.001 and 0.006, for 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 logMAR respectively) with no significant difference for binocular depth of focus. LARA eyes had significantly better monocular depth of focus at all levels compared with ASPHINA eyes (all p < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference between Symfony and ASPHINA eyes at 0.1 logMAR and 0.2 logMAR. Both EDOF IOLs were significantly better than the monofocal ASPHINA at all levels for binocular depth of focus (LARA: all p < 0.0001; Symfony: all p = 0.002). Distance visual acuity was similar for all IOLs at 6 months; intermediate and near visual acuity were significantly better for the EDOF IOLs than for the monofocal (p < 0.0001). Refraction improved in all groups relative to baseline. Contrast sensitivity was higher with the CT ASPHINA 409MP but both EDOF lenses had a better spectacle independence rate. At 6 months, all IOLs were well centred with no cases of tilt. No general safety issues were raised for any of the groups.ConclusionThe two EDOF intraocular lenses investigated provided good visual outcomes with comparable visual acuity at all distances. The AT LARA 829MP provided the widest monocular depth of focus at 0.1 and 0.2 logMAR, with a clear superiority compared with the monofocal IOL. TECNIS Symfony was superior to the monofocal control at 0.3 logMAR. Spectacle independence and patient satisfaction were comparable.Trial registrationTrial registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ under the identification NCT03172351 (date of registration 1 June May 2017).

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.