Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens

  • Cataract
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare visual and contrast sensitivity (CS) outcomes, reading skills, and spectacle independence in patients implanted with two models of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) or an extended range of vision (ERV) IOL.

Methods

This non-randomized prospective series of cases included 120 eyes of 60 patients undergoing cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of three different IOLs: the ERV IOL Tecnis Symfony (40 eyes) (Abbott Medical Optics), the trifocal IOLs PanOptix IQ (40 eyes) (Alcon), and AT LISA tri 839MP (40 eyes) (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Visual results, photopic and mesopic CS, binocular reading skills (MNREAD charts), and patient satisfaction were evaluated 3 months after surgery.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity. The Tecnis Symfony IOL showed better mesopic intermediate visual outcomes than the two trifocal IOLs (p < 0.05 vs AT LISA). Under photopic conditions, AT LISA tri 839MP and PanOptix IQ showed better near visual outcomes compared with the ERV IOL (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). The Tecnis Symfony IOL provided significantly better photopic and mesopic CS outcomes than the other IOL models (p < 0.001). Reading skills were not significantly different between the three IOL models (p > 0.05). Less patients implanted with the two trifocal IOLs required a near addition than patients with the ERV IOL.

Conclusions

All the tested IOLs provided good visual outcome, reading performance, and spectacle independence after cataract surgery. While trifocal IOLs gave better near visual acuity results, the ERV IOL provided better contrast sensitivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Calladine D, Evans JR, Shah S, Leyland M (2012) Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12(9):CD003169

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alió JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Piñero DP, Amparo F, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Ayala MJ (2011) Quality of life evaluation after implantation of 2 multifocal intraocular lens models and a monofocal model. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:638–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Percival SP (1989) Prospective study of the new diffractive bifocal intraocular lens. Eye 3:571–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shen Z, Lin Y, Zhu Y, Liu X, Yan J, Yao K (2017) Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 7:45337

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mendicute J, Kapp A, Lévy P, Krommes G, Arias-Puente A, Tomalla M, Barraquer E, Rozot P, Bouchut P (2016) Evaluation of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:203–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kohnen T (2015) First implantation of a diffractive quadrifocal (trifocal) intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2330–2332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pedrotti E, Bruni E, Bonacci E, Badalamenti R, Mastropasqua R, Marchini G (2016) Comparative analysis of the clinical outcomes with a monofocal and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 32:436–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hohberger B, Laemmer R, Adler W, Juenemann AGM, Horn FK (2007) Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC® 6500: influence of age and glare. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:1805–1814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Radner W (2016) Near vision examination in presbyopia patients: do we need good homologated near vision charts. Eye Vis 3:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cillino G, Casuccio A, Pasti M, Bono V, Mencucci R, Cillino S (2014) Working-age cataract patients: visual results, reading performance, and quality of life with three diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 121:34–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Martínez de la Casa JM, Carballo-Álvarez J, García-Bella J, Vázquez-Molini JM, Morales L, Sanz-Fernández JC, Polo V, García-Feijoo J (2016) Photopic and mesopic performance of 2 different trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27(1):26–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mojzis P, Majerova K, Hrckova L, Piñero DP (2015) Implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: one-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1623–1630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kohnen T, Titke C, Böhm M (2016) Trifocal intraocular lens implantation to treat visual demands in various distances following lens removal. Am J Ophthalmol 161:71–77.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bilbao-Calabuig R, Llovet-Rausell A, Ortega-Usobiaga J, Martínez-Del-Pozo M, Mayordomo-Cerdá F, Segura-Albentosa C, Baviera J, Llovet-Osuna F (2017) Visual outcomes following bilateral lmplantation of two diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses in 10 084 eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 179:55–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Plaza-Puche AB, Alio JL (2016) Analysis of defocus curves of different modern multifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 26(5):412–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee S, Choi M, Xu Z, Zhao Z, Alexander E, Liu Y (2016) Optical bench performance of a novel trifocal intraocular lens compared with a multifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 10:1031–1038

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gundersen KG, Potvin R (2017) Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1081–1087

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lawless M, Hodge C, Reich J, Levitz L, Bhatt UK, McAlinden C, Roberts K, Roberts TV (2017) Visual and refractive outcomes following implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Eye Vis (Lond) 4:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kohnen T, Herzog M, Hemkeppler E, Schönbrunn S, De Lorenzo N, Petermann K, Böhm M (2017) Visual performance of a quadrifocal (trifocal) intraocular lens following removal of the crystalline lens. Am J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.09.016

  20. Cochener B, Concerto Study Group (2016) Clinical outcomes of a new extended range of vision intraocular lens: International Multicenter Concerto Study. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1268–1275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F, Poscia A, Ruggi G, Scialdone A (2017) Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 43(6):737–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengózar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos M (2017) A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5001029

  23. Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengózar-Vela A, Aramburu A, Ruiz-Santos M (2017) Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27(4):460–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Artal P, Manzanera S, Piers P, Weeber H (2010) Visual effect of the combined correction of spherical and longitudinal chromatic aberrations. Opt Express 18:1637–1648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Domínguez-Vicent A, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R (2016) In vitro optical quality comparison between the Mini WELL Ready progressive multifocal and the TECNIS Symfony. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254:1387–1397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gatinel D, Loicq J (2016) Clinically relevant optical properties of bifocal, trifocal, and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 32:273–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Esteve-Taboada JJ, Domínguez-Vicent A, Del Águila-Carrasco AJ, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R (2015) Effect of large apertures on the optical quality of three multifocal lenses. J Refract Surg 31:666–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chang DH, Rocha KM (2016) Intraocular lens optics and aberrations. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27:298–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Attia MS, Auffarth GU, Khoramnia R, Linz K, Kretz FT (2015) Near and intermediate reading performance of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens using a reading desk. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2707–2714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rasp M, Bachernegg A, Seyeddain O, Ruckhofer J, Emesz M, Stoiber J, Grabner G, Dexl AK (2012) Bilateral reading performance of 4 multifocal intraocular lens models and a monofocal intraocular lens under bright lighting conditions. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1950–1961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alió JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Piñero DP, Amparo F, Jiménez R, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Javaloy J, Pongo V (2011) Optical analysis, reading performance, and quality-of-life evaluation after implantation of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:27–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin J (1993) Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci 70(1):54–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would also thank prof. Gianni Virgili for additional statistical assistance.

Funding

No public or private financial support was received for the study. The authors received third-party statistical support facilitated by Abbott.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy

    Rita Mencucci, Eleonora Favuzza, Orsola Caporossi, Alfonso Savastano & Stanislao Rizzo

Authors
  1. Rita Mencucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleonora Favuzza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Orsola Caporossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alfonso Savastano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stanislao Rizzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rita Mencucci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mencucci, R., Favuzza, E., Caporossi, O. et al. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256, 1913–1922 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation