nach oben

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Erschienen in:

28.05.2022 | Cataract

Comparison of visual outcomes after two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus and trifocal intraocular lenses

verfasst von: Jung Wan Kim, Youngsub Eom, Wonkyung Park, Jong Suk Song, Ji Won Jeong, Seh Kwang Park, Hyo Myung Kim

Erschienen in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Ausgabe 10/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare visual outcomes between two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus (EDoF) and trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

A total of 212 eyes of 106 subjects with mix-and-match implanted FineVision Triumf and FineVision HP IOLs (Triumf–HP group) and 212 eyes of 106 subjects with mix-and-match implanted Zeiss AT LARA and AT LISA IOLs (AT LARA–LISA group) were enrolled in this retrospective case–control study. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and binocular distance-corrected defocus curves were measured between 6 and 10 weeks after cataract surgery.

Results

There was no significant difference in UDVA among the four IOLs. UNVA was the best in eyes with the FineVision HP IOL (0.04 ± 0.06 logMAR), followed by eyes with the AT LISA IOL (0.07 ± 0.07 logMAR), the FineVision Triumf IOL (0.09 ± 0.09 logMAR), and the AT LARA IOL (0.11 ± 0.08 logMAR), respectively. The AT LARA–LISA group had better visual acuity than the Triumf–HP group between − 1.00 D and − 1.50 D of defocus, and the Triumf–HP group had better visual acuity than the AT LARA–LISA group between − 3.00 D and − 4.00 D of defocus.

Conclusion

Mix-and-match implantation of trifocal EDoF and trifocal IOLs provided good visual outcomes in far, intermediate, and near distances. The mix-and-match implantation of Triumf–HP IOLs led to better visual outcomes in near vision, while that of the AT LARA–LISA IOLs led to better visual outcomes in intermediate vision.

Taylor HR, Keeffe JE (2001) World blindness: a 21st century perspective. Br J Ophthalmol 85:261–266. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.3.261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

de Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V, Ziaei M, Leyland M (2016) Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:Cd003169. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003169.pub4CrossRefPubMed

Bartol-Puyal FA, Talavero P, Giménez G, Altemir I, Larrosa JM, Polo V, Pablo LE (2017) Reading and quality of life differences between Tecnis ZCB00 monofocal and Tecnis ZMB00 multifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 27:443–453. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000925CrossRefPubMed

Chaves MA, Hida WT, Tzeliks PF, Gonçalves MR, Nogueira Fde B, Nakano CT, Motta AF, Araújo AG, Alves MR (2016) Comparative study on optical performance and visual outcomes between two diffractive multifocal lenses: AMO Tecnis ® ZMB00 and AcrySof ® IQ ReSTOR ® Multifocal IOL SN6AD1. Arq Bras Oftalmol 79:171–176. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20160050CrossRefPubMed

Kamiya K, Hayashi K, Shimizu K, Negishi K, Sato M, Bissen-Miyajima H (2014) Multifocal intraocular lens explantation: a case series of 50 eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 158:215-220.e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.010CrossRefPubMed

Eom Y, Song JS, Kim HM (2017) Spectacle plane add power of multifocal intraocular lenses according to effective lens position. Can J Ophthalmol 52:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2016.07.026CrossRefPubMed

Rampat R, Gatinel D (2021) Multifocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses in 2020. Ophthalmology 128:e164–e185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.09.026CrossRefPubMed

Yang CM, Lim DH, Hwang S, Hyun J, Chung TY (2018) Prospective study of bilateral mix-and-match implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in Koreans. BMC Ophthalmol 18:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0735-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eom Y, Kim DW, Ryu D, Kim JH, Yang SK, Song JS, Kim SW, Kim HM (2017) Ring-shaped dysphotopsia associated with posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lenses with a central hole. Acta Ophthalmol 95:e170–e178. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13248CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kim JW, Eom Y, Chung HW, Song JS, Jeong JW, Park SK, Kim HM (2020) Factors for good near and distance visual outcomes of multifocal intraocular lens with inferior segmental near add. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 258:1735–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04761-1CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kim JH, Eom Y, Park SY, Choi SY, Hwang HS, Kim JH, Song JS, Kim HM (2020) Rainbow halos occur less following implantation of extended range of vision one-piece intraocular lenses vs diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses. Int J Ophthalmol 13:913–919. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2020.06.09

12.

Kim JS, Jung JW, Lee JM, Seo KY, Kim EK, Kim TI (2015) Clinical outcomes following implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses with varying add powers. Am J Ophthalmol 160:702-709.e701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.07.021CrossRefPubMed

13.

Carson D, Hill WE, Hong X, Karakelle M (2014) Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 8:2105–2113. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S66760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Rodov L, Reitblat O, Levy A, Assia EI, Kleinmann G (2019) Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction for trifocal, extended depth of focus and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 35:434–440. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20190618-01CrossRefPubMed

15.

Liu J, Dong Y, Wang Y (2019) Efficacy and safety of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 19:198. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1204-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Rocha KM (2017) Extended Depth of Focus IOLs: The next chapter in refractive technology? J Refract Surg 33:146–149. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20170217-01CrossRefPubMed

17.

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 27:460–465. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000935CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tarib I, Kasier I, Herbers C, Hagen P, Breyer D, Kaymak H, Klabe K, Lucchesi R, Teisch S, Diakonis VF, Hahn U, Fabian H, Kretz FTA (2019) Comparison of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of an EDOF IOL and a mix-and-match approach. J Refract Surg 35:408–416. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20190417-02CrossRefPubMed

19.

de Medeiros AL, de Araújo Rolim AG, Motta AFP, Ventura BV, Vilar C, Chaves M, 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. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S145945CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Reinhard T, Maier P, Böhringer D, Bertelmann E, Brockmann T, Kiraly L, Salom D, Piovella M, Colonval S, Mendicute J (2021) Comparison of two extended depth of focus intraocular lenses with a monofocal lens: a multi-centre randomised trial. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 259:431–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04868-5CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lapid-Gortzak R, Bhatt U, Sanchez JG, Guarro M, Hida WT, Bala C, Nosé RM, Rodriguez Alvira FJ, Martinez A (2020) Multicenter visual outcomes comparison of 2 trifocal presbyopia-correcting IOLs: 6-month postoperative results. J Cataract Refract Surg 46:1534–1542. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000274CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sezgin Asena B (2019) Visual and refractive outcomes, spectacle independence, and visual disturbances after cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery: comparison of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 45:1539–1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.06.005CrossRefPubMed

23.

Marques EF, Ferreira TB (2015) Comparison of visual outcomes of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.05.048CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cochener B (2016) Prospective clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 32:146–151. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20160114-01CrossRefPubMed

25.

McAlinden C, Pesudovs K, Moore JE (2010) The development of an instrument to measure quality of vision: the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:5537–5545. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5341CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ribeiro F, Ferreira TB (2020) Comparison of clinical outcomes of 3 trifocal IOLs. J Cataract Refract Surg 46:1247–1252. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000212CrossRefPubMed

27.

Terauchi R, Horiguchi H, Ogawa S, Sano K, Ogawa T, Shiba T, Nakano T (2021) Age-related visual outcomes in eyes with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Eye (Lond). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01854-xCrossRef

28.

Takabatake R, Takahashi M (2021) Preoperative factors affecting visual acuity following the implantation of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 37:674–679. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20210712-01CrossRefPubMed

29.

Koga T, Koga T (2015) Factors affecting uncorrected visual acuity following implantation of apodized diffractive intraocular lenses. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 119:846–854PubMed

30.

Chang DF (2008) Prospective functional and clinical comparison of bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses in patients 70 years or younger. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:934–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.12.053CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lee H, Lee K, Ahn JM, Kim EK, Sgrignoli B, Kim TI (2014) Evaluation of optical quality parameters and ocular aberrations in multifocal intraocular lens implanted eyes. Yonsei Med J 55:1413–1420. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2014.55.5.1413CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Eom Y, Yang SK, Yoon EG, Choi JN, Ryu D, Kim DW, Kim JH, Song JS, Kim SW, Kim HM (2020) Multizonal design multifocal intraocular lens-induced astigmatism according to orientation. J Refract Surg 36:740–748. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20200828-02CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kim JW, Eom Y, Yoon EG, Choi Y, Song JS, Jeong JW, Park SK, Kim HM (2021) Comparison of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy rates between refractive segmented multifocal and multifocal Toric intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 222:359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2020.09.046CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kim JW, Eom Y, Yoon EG, Song JS, Jeong JW, Park SK, Kim HM (2021) Increased near vision spectacle dependence of patients with preoperative myopia after mix-and-match implantation of trifocal EDOF and trifocal IOLs. J Refract Surg 37:746–753. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20210802-02CrossRefPubMed

35.

Eom Y, Kang SY, Song JS, Kim HM (2013) Comparison of the actual amount of axial movement of 3 aspheric intraocular lenses using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1528–1533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.04.040CrossRefPubMed

36.

Eom Y, Kang SY, Song JS, Kim HM (2013) Use of corneal power-specific constants to improve the accuracy of the SRK/T formula. Ophthalmology 120:477–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.008CrossRefPubMed

37.

Eom Y, Yoo E, Kang SY, Kim HM, Song JS (2013) Change in efficiency of aspheric intraocular lenses based on pupil diameter. Am J Ophthalmol 155:492-498.e492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2012.09.024CrossRefPubMed

38.

Choi Y, Eom Y, Song JS, Kim HM (2017) Influence of corneal power on intraocular lens power of the second eye in the SRK/T formula in bilateral cataract surgery. BMC Ophthalmol 17:261. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0664-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Kim M, Eom Y, Lee H, Suh YW, Song JS, Kim HM (2018) Use of the posterior/anterior corneal curvature radii ratio to improve the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation: Eom’s Adjustment Method. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 59:1016–1024. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22405CrossRefPubMed

40.

Kim M, Eom Y, Song JS, Kim HM (2018) Comparative evaluation of refractive outcomes after implantation of two types of intraocular lenses with different diopter intervals (0.25 diopter versus 0.50 diopter). BMC Ophthalmol 18:176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0840-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Kim JW, Eom Y, Yoon EG, Choi Y, Song JS, Jeong JW, Park SK, Kim HM (2022) Algorithmic intraocular lens power calculation formula selection by keratometry, anterior chamber depth and axial length. Acta Ophthalmol 100:e701–e709. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14956CrossRefPubMed

42.

Chang SW, Wu WL (2021) Age affects intraocular lens attributes preference in cataract surgery. Taiwan J Ophthalmol 11:280–286. https://doi.org/10.4103/tjo.tjo_20_20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Comparison of visual outcomes after two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus and trifocal intraocular lenses
verfasst von: Jung Wan Kim
Youngsub Eom
Wonkyung Park
Jong Suk Song
Ji Won Jeong
Seh Kwang Park
Hyo Myung Kim
Publikationsdatum: 28.05.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Ausgabe 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05710-w

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

08.04.2024 | Therapieverfahren in der Augenheilkunde | CME

Update Augenheilkunde

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Comparison of visual outcomes after two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus and trifocal intraocular lenses

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Ophthalmika in der Schwangerschaft

Operative Therapie und Keimnachweis bei endogener Endophthalmitis

Bakterielle endogene Endophthalmitis

So erreichen Sie eine bestmögliche Wundheilung der Kornea

Update Augenheilkunde

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2022

Comparison of treatment effects between 4.9% N-acetyl-aspartyl glutamic acid and 0.05% cyclosporine A eye drops in dry eye patients

Clinical features and visual outcomes of ocular sarcoidosis at a tertiary referral center in Tokyo

Gender differences among US vitreoretinal surgical and medical retina fellowship program directors

Patient-centred care in ophthalmology: current practices, effectiveness and challenges

Dark halo, a new biomarker in macular neovascularization: comparison between OCT angiography and ICGA—a pilot prospective study

Corneal morphology correlates with choriocapillaris perfusion in myopic children

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

Ophthalmika in der Schwangerschaft

Operative Therapie und Keimnachweis bei endogener Endophthalmitis

Bakterielle endogene Endophthalmitis

So erreichen Sie eine bestmögliche Wundheilung der Kornea

Update Augenheilkunde