Comparison of visual outcomes after implantation of AtLisa tri 839 MP and Symfony intraocular lenses.
Aspheric
Diffractive
EDOF
Extended depth of focus
Multifocal lens
Trifocal lens
Visual function
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
03
02
2019
accepted:
18
05
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
4
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare visual outcomes after implantation of AtLisa tri 839 MP and Symfony intraocular lenses (IOLs). All subjects underwent sequential bilateral cataract extraction with AtLisa tri 839 MP or Symfony IOL implantation. The design is prospective case series. Each group consists of 20 patients (40 eyes). At 1 year postoperatively, the following parameters were analysed: binocular uncorrected visual acuity (log MAR): for distance (UDVA) at 4 m, for intermediate distances (UIVA) at 60, 70, 80 cm and for near (UNVA) at 40 cm, defocus curve, mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivities (CSs), spectacle independence, visual function test questionnaire modified VFQ-25), photopic phenomena and postoperative complications. In the AtLisa tri 839 MP group, the mean binocular UNVA and UIVA were significantly better than in the Symfony group (UNVA: - 0.01 ± 0.04 vs. 0.21 ± 0.15; p = 0.000; 60 cm UIVA: - 0.01 ± 0.04 vs. 0.09 ± 0.09, p = 0.001; 70 cm UIVA - 0.05 ± 0.06 vs. 0.11 ± 0.08, p = 0.002; 80 cm UIVA - 0.01 ± 0.06 vs. 0.15 ± 0.08, p = 0.019). There were no significant between-group differences in the mean binocular UDVA and CS, with one exception: the mean binocular distance CS (18 cpd) under mesopic conditions was significantly better in the Symfony group than in the AtLisa tri 839 MP group (1.39 ± 0.22 vs. 1.17 ± 0.27; p = 0.015). The defocus curve analysis revealed significant between-group differences at vergences of 2.0 to - 4.0 D (p < 0.05), except for 2.0, 1.0, 0 and - 1.5. All subjects in AtLisa tri 839 MP group and 18 subjects (90%) in Symfony group were spectacle independent. Patients from both groups highly rated their overall vision quality in the VFQ-25 (1.67 ± 0.47 vs. 1.85 ± 0.5 in the Symfony and AtLisa tri 839 MP group, respectively, p = NS). The scores for daytime driving (1.00 ± 0.00 vs. 1.21 ± 0.36; p = 0.002), night driving (1.57 ± 0.55 vs. 2.13 ± 1.15; p = 0.027) and difficult situation driving (1.14 ± 0.31 vs. 1.53 ± 0.56; p = 0.049) were significantly better in the AtLisa tri 839 MP group than in the Symfony group. The incidence and perception level of halo and glare were significantly reduced (p = 0.00) in the Symfony group as compared to the AtLisa tri 839 MP group. The postoperative course was uneventful in all subjects. Visual outcomes achieved with both IOLs are comparable. In both groups, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence. Whereas the AtLisa tri 839 MP IOL implantation was associated with slightly better intermediate distance VA and significantly better near VA, photic phenomena were less perceived by patients with Symfony IOLs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32488596
doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01435-z
pii: 10.1007/s10792-020-01435-z
pmc: PMC7502443
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2553-2562Références
Vryghem JC, Heireman S (2013) Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 7:1957–1965
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S44415
Carballo-Alvarez J, Vazquez-Molini JM, Sanz- Fernandez JC et al (2015) Visual outcomes after bilateral trifocal diffractive intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmol 15:26
doi: 10.1186/s12886-015-0012-4
Alio JL, Montalban R, Pena-Garcia P, Soria FA, Vega-Estrada A (2013) Visual outcomes of a trifocal aspheric diffractive intraocular lens with microincision cataract surgery. J Refract Surg 29:756–761
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20131021-05
Kohnen T, Titke C, Bohm M (2016) Trifocal intraocular lens implantation to treat visual demands in various distances following lens removal. Am J Ophthalmol 161:71–77
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.09.030
Jonker SM, Bauer NJ, Makhotkina NY, Berendschot TT, van den Biggelaar FJ, Nujits RM (2015) Comparison of a trifocal intraocular lens with a +3.0 D bifocal IOL: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1631–1640
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.08.011
Cohener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P et al (2014) Clinical outcomes with a trifocal intraocular lens: a multi-centre study. J Refract Surg 30:762–768
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20141021-08
Mojzis P, Majerova P, Hrckova L, Pinero DP (2015) Implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: one-year follow up. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1623–1630
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.11.050
Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F et al (2017) Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: trifocal vs. extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:737–747
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.03.037
Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos MA (2018) Comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol 28(2):182–187
doi: 10.5301/ejo.5001029
Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C (2018) A Comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 34(8):507–514
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02
Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O, Savastano A, Rizzo S (2018) 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(10):1913–1922
doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3
de Medeiros AL, de Araújo Rolim AG, Motta AFP, Ventura BV, Vilar C, Chaves MAPD, Carricondo PC, Hida WT (2017) Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 11:1911–1916
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S145945
Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-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. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000935
doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000935
pubmed: 28885672
Sudhir RR, Dey A, Bhattacharrya S, Bahulayan A (2019) AcrySof IQ PanOptix intraocular lens versus extended depth of focus intraocular lens and trifocal intraocular lens: a clinical overview. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 8(4):335–349
doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000253
Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, Janz NK, Klein R, Owsley C, Lee PP (1998) Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch Ophthalmol 116:227–233
pubmed: 9488276
Pomeranie G, Evans D (1994) Test–retest reliability of the CSV-1000 contrast test and its relationship to glaucoma therapy. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35(9):3357–3361
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
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20160428-06
Chang DH, Rocha KM (2016) Intraocular lens optics and aberrations. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 27:298–303
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000279
Eppig T, Filser E, Goeppert H, Schroeder AC, Seitz B, Langenbucher A (2015) Index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) in pseudophakic eyes with different intraocular lens designs. Acta Ophthalmol 93(3):181–187
doi: 10.1111/aos.12538
Crnej A, Buehl W, Greslechner R, Hirnschall N, Findl O (2014) Effect of an aspheric intraocular lens on the ocular wave-front adjusted for pupil size and capsulorhexis size. Acta Ophthalmol 92:e353–e357
doi: 10.1111/aos.12344
Kretz FTA, Muller M, Gerl M, Gerl RH, Auffarth GU (2015) Binocular function to increase visual outcome in patients implanted with a diffractive trifocal IOL. BMC Ophthalmol 15:110
doi: 10.1186/s12886-015-0089-9
Lubiński W, Gronkowska-Serafin J, Podboraczyńska-Jodko K, Karczewicz D (2009) Cataract surgery with bilateral multifocal ReZoom intraocular lens implantation–comparison of 3 and 12-month follow-up. Klin Oczna 111(10–12):327–331
pubmed: 20169888
Rosa AM, Miranda ÂC, Patrício MM, McAlinden C, Silva FL, Castelo-Branco M, Murta JN (2017) Functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess neuroadaptation to multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 43(10):1287–1296
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.07.031
Lubiński W, Gronkowska-Serafin J, Podborączyńska-Jodko K (2014) Clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lens. Med Sci Monit 20:1220–1226
doi: 10.12659/MSM.890585
Phillips P (2019) New lens, same brain: the importance of neuroadaptation. EyeNet
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(10):666–676
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20150928-01
Weeber HA, Piers PA (2012) Theoretical performance of intraocular lenses correcting both spherical and achromatic aberration. J Refract Surg 28(1):48–52
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20111103-01
Masket S, Wang L, Belani S (2009) Induced astigmatism with 2.2- and 3.0-mm coaxial phacoemulsification incisions. J Refract Surg 25(1):21–24
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20090101-04
Wilczynski M, Supady E, Loba P, Synder A, Palenga-Pydyn D, Omulecki W (2011) Evaluation of surgically induced astigmatism after coaxial phacoemulsification through 1.8 mm microincision and standard phacoemulsification through 2.75 mm incision. Klin Oczna 113(10–12):314–320
pubmed: 22384647
Luo L, Lin H, He M, Congdon N, Yang Y, Liu Y (2012) Clinical evaluation of three incision size-dependent phacoemulsification systems. Am J Ophthalmol 153(5):831–839
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.034
Lee KM, Kwon HG, Joo CK (2009) Microcoaxial cataract surgery outcomes: comparison of 1.8 mm system and 2.2 mm system. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(5):874–880
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.12.031
Kim EC, Byun YS, Kim MS (2011) Microincision vs. small-incision coaxial cataract surgery using different power modes for hard nuclear cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(10):1799–1805
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.04.024
Yang J, Wang X, Zhang H, Pang Y, Wei RH (2017) Clinical evaluation of surgery-induced astigmatism in cataract surgery using 2.2 mm or 1.8 mm clear corneal micro-incisions. Int J Ophthalmol 10(1):68–71
pubmed: 28149779
pmcid: 5225351
Dewey S, Beiko G, Braga-Mele R, Nixon DR, Raviv T, Rosenthal K (2014) Microincisions in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(9):1549–1557
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.07.006
Cohener 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
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.06.033