Clinical outcomes in eyes with diffractive continuous depth-of-focus intraocular lenses enhanced for near vision: comparison with trifocal intraocular lenses.
Binocular contrast sensitivity
Binocular visual acuity
Continuous depth-of-focus intraocular lens
Intermediate distance
Pelli-Robson chart
Trifocal intraocular lens
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Nov 2023
21 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
08
09
2023
accepted:
07
11
2023
medline:
23
11
2023
pubmed:
22
11
2023
entrez:
22
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To prospectively evaluate visual functions and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of diffractive continuous depth-of-focus intraocular lens (CDF IOL) compared with trifocal IOLs. This investigator-initiated study was approved by a certified local review board (registered: jRCTs032210305). CDF IOL (Synergy, J&J, group S) and trifocal IOL (AcrySof PanOptix, Alcon, group P) were implanted bilaterally in 30 patients each. Three months postoperatively, binocular outcomes of uncorrected (BUCVA) and distance-corrected (BDCVA) visual acuities at distances of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, and 5 m were measured. Contrast sensitivities were binocularly measured using CSV-1000 (2.5 m) and Pelli-Robson charts at distances of 0.4 and 1 m. Symptoms of glare, halo, starburst, and waxy vision, and satisfaction for near, intermediate, and far visions were assessed with questionnaires. Differences between the two groups were examined. Twenty-seven patients each completed the follow-up. The mean age of the group S was lower than that of the group P (P < 0.001). The BUCVA at 0.4 m was better in the S group, while the mean manifest refraction of the P group showed a significant hyperopic shift (P < 0.001). BDCVA was significantly better in the S group. The contrast sensitivity results at three distances showed no discernible differences. Although more patients in the S group reported significant glare and halo, their satisfaction with near vision was higher. The binocular visual function of patients with CDF IOLs was comparable to or better than that of patients with trifocal IOLs. The patients were satisfied with near vision, despite the enhanced glare and halo. Understanding the differences between the two types of presbyopia-correcting IOLs is important to ensure patient satisfaction. This clinical trial was registered in the Japan Registry for Clinical Research (identifier: jRCTs032210305) on September 13, 2021.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To prospectively evaluate visual functions and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of diffractive continuous depth-of-focus intraocular lens (CDF IOL) compared with trifocal IOLs.
METHODS
METHODS
This investigator-initiated study was approved by a certified local review board (registered: jRCTs032210305). CDF IOL (Synergy, J&J, group S) and trifocal IOL (AcrySof PanOptix, Alcon, group P) were implanted bilaterally in 30 patients each. Three months postoperatively, binocular outcomes of uncorrected (BUCVA) and distance-corrected (BDCVA) visual acuities at distances of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, and 5 m were measured. Contrast sensitivities were binocularly measured using CSV-1000 (2.5 m) and Pelli-Robson charts at distances of 0.4 and 1 m. Symptoms of glare, halo, starburst, and waxy vision, and satisfaction for near, intermediate, and far visions were assessed with questionnaires. Differences between the two groups were examined.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-seven patients each completed the follow-up. The mean age of the group S was lower than that of the group P (P < 0.001). The BUCVA at 0.4 m was better in the S group, while the mean manifest refraction of the P group showed a significant hyperopic shift (P < 0.001). BDCVA was significantly better in the S group. The contrast sensitivity results at three distances showed no discernible differences. Although more patients in the S group reported significant glare and halo, their satisfaction with near vision was higher.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The binocular visual function of patients with CDF IOLs was comparable to or better than that of patients with trifocal IOLs. The patients were satisfied with near vision, despite the enhanced glare and halo. Understanding the differences between the two types of presbyopia-correcting IOLs is important to ensure patient satisfaction.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This clinical trial was registered in the Japan Registry for Clinical Research (identifier: jRCTs032210305) on September 13, 2021.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37990206
doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-03207-6
pii: 10.1186/s12886-023-03207-6
pmc: PMC10664304
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
475Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021 Nov 1;47(11):1448-1453
pubmed: 33929808
J Refract Surg. 2023 Feb;39(2):111-118
pubmed: 36779464
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Oct;39(10):1502-6
pubmed: 23910713
Optom Vis Sci. 2020 Oct;97(10):865-870
pubmed: 33055507
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Mar 1;48(3):280-287
pubmed: 34321410
Acta Ophthalmol. 2021 Sep;99(6):e837-e843
pubmed: 33191658
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Nov 1;48(11):1235-1241
pubmed: 36315627
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022 Nov 1;140(11):1045-1053
pubmed: 36136323
Clin Ophthalmol. 2023 Jan 10;17:155-163
pubmed: 36647516
J Refract Surg. 1998 Jul-Aug;14(4):397-407
pubmed: 9699163
J Clin Med. 2022 Dec 12;11(24):
pubmed: 36555990
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Nov 1;48(11):1270-1276
pubmed: 35545816
Curr Eye Res. 2018 Aug;43(8):998-1005
pubmed: 29776319
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jan 27;1:CD012648
pubmed: 36705482