Prospective Evaluation of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Contralateral Implantation of an Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) and Hybrid EDOF-Multifocal IOL.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes following contralateral implantation of a diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) and a hybrid EDOF-multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with a violet filter in a U.S.-based population. METHODS: In this prospective, non-comparative study, 60 eyes of 30 patients aged 40 years and older underwent bilateral cataract surgery and implantation of a DXR00V IOL (Tecnis Symfony OptiBlue) in the dominant eye and a DFR00V (Tecnis Synergy) IOL in the non-dominant eye. Outcome measures included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA, 66 cm), near and very near visual acuity (DCNVA, 40 and 33 cm), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: At 6 months postoperatively, binocular mean UDVA and CDVA were -0.10 ± 0.07 and -0.11 ± 0.05 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), respectively. The mean DCIVA was 0.26 ± 0.08 logMAR in the DXR00V eyes and 0.23 ± 0.06 logMAR in the DFR00V eyes. The mean DCNVA at 40 and 33 cm were 0.28 ± 0.12 and 0.30 ± 0.15 logMAR, respectively, in the DXR00V eyes and 0.07 ± 0.08 and 0.07 ± 0.10 logMAR, respectively, in the DFR00V eyes. The mean binocular DCIVA and DCNVA at 33 and 40 cm were 0.18 ± 0.05, 0.06 ± 0.08, and 0.06 ± 0.07 logMAR, respectively. The percentages of patients achieving spectacle independence at far, intermediate, and near distances were 100%, 100%, and 81%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Contralateral implantation of the diffractive EDOF and a hybrid EDOF-multifocal IOL yielded excellent binocular visual acuity at all distances, as well as high patient satisfaction and functional performance on visual tasks. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(10):e699-e705.].

Visual outcomes following high water-content hydrophobic acrylic trifocal intraocular lens implantation.

BACKGROUND: To prospectively evaluate binocular visual outcomes after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with high-water-content hydrophobic acrylic material in Japanese patients. METHODS: In 59 patients (mean age 65.1 ± 7.9 years), Clareon PanOptix (CNWTT0: Alcon) with a high-water-content hydrophobic acrylic material was implanted bilaterally. Three months postoperatively, binocular uncorrected visual acuity (BUCVA) and distance-corrected visual acuity (BDCVA) at distances of 5 m, 80, 60, and 40 cm, binocular defocus curves, and binocular photopic contrast sensitivity were examined. Subjective symptoms (night vision disturbance, glare, halos, haze, or blurry vision) were also assessed. RESULTS: The mean postoperative BUCVA/BDCVA at 5 m, 80 cm, 60 cm, and 40 cm were - 0.115/-0.163, -0.052/-0.047, -0.054/-0.075, and - 0.043/-0.067 logMAR, respectively. A smooth defocus curve, contrast sensitivity within the normal range, and acceptable subjective symptom rates were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The trifocal IOL, composed of a high-water-content hydrophobic acrylic material, provides good continuous binocular vision from distance to near. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This investigator-initiated study was registered in the Japan Registry for Clinical Trials (identifier: jRCTs032220042) on April 26, 2022.

[Determination of refractive error and visual acuity after implantation of multifocal or extended depth of focus lenses]. / Refraktion- und Visusbestimmung nach Implantation von Multifokal- oder Extended-Depth-of-Focus-Linsen.

There are many factors that can affect the postoperative satisfaction of patients after implantation of intraocular lenses with extended depth of focus (EDoF) and multifocal lenses (e.g., photic phenomena, postoperative complications and the presence of dry eye symptoms); however, achieving the target refraction should also be considered an important factor in the satisfaction. This article highlights the pitfalls in determining the refractive error in patients with a multifocal or EDoF lens and how uncorrected and corrected visual acuity can impact patient satisfaction.

Clinical Outcomes after Implantation of a Novel Binocular Complementary Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens Compared to Bilateral Low Near-Add Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, patients expect to be less spectacle dependent at all distances after cataract surgery. However, all intraocular lens (IOL) models that currently offer this function can also have negative visual effects. Aim of this study was therefore to compare the visual function performance of a novel and a conventional IOL solution for multifocality. METHODS: Patients scheduled for bilateral cataract surgery were randomized to receive one of two different IOL combinations: either a binocular complementary extended depth-of-focus IOL set or a low near-add MIOL. Patients had visual acuity (VA) assessment at distance, intermediate, and near as well as evaluation of contrast sensitivity, halometry, and reading performance. RESULTS: In total, 56 eyes of 28 patients were enrolled. At 6 months, there were no statistically significant differences in binocular VA between the ARTIS SYMBIOSE and the AT LARA. Contrast sensitivity, measured binocularly, at 1.5 cycles per degree under photopic conditions without glare was 1.54 logCS with the ARTIS SYMBIOSE and 1.43 logCS with the AT LARA (p = 0.046), under mesopic conditions with glare at 1.5 and 3 cycles per degree 1.31 logCS and 1.28 logCS with the ARTIS SYMBIOSE, respectively, compared to 0.58 logCS and 0.51 logCS with the AT LARA (p = 0.002; p = 0.006). Binocular halos and reading performance between both groups were similar. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences between both groups in VA at different distances, reading ability, or halometry. The contrast sensitivity at low spatial frequencies was better in the ARTIS SYMBIOSE group under photopic conditions without glare as well as mesopic conditions with glare, which could potentially improve quality of vision with these IOLs, especially under mesopic conditions.

Comparison of Objective and Subjective Visual Outcomes Between Pentafocal and Trifocal Diffractive Intraocular Lenses.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and aberrometric outcomes obtained with a new diffractive pentafocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a diffractive trifocal IOL. METHODS: Patients bilaterally implanted with the pentafocal Intensity SeeLens IOL (Hanita Lenses) (n = 30) and the trifocal FineVision POD F IOL (PhysIOL) (n = 30) during cataract surgery were studied after 1 month for refraction, visual acuity, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, Hartmann-Shack aberration, and double-pass aberration. The Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire was used to evaluate visual comfort. RESULTS: Distance and near visual acuities were similar with the two IOLs, but distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity was better with the Intensity IOLs (0.03 ± 0.04 vs 0.11 ± 0.04 logMAR in the FineVision eyes, P < .01). The difference between objective and subjective refraction was more myopic for the Intensity IOL (-1.15 vs -0.29 diopters [D]). The defocus curve was flatter with the Intensity IOL. Contrast sensitivity was similar in both IOLs. Hartmann-Shack aberration and double-pass aberration were similar, but the modulation transfer function cut-off value was worse with the Intensity IOL: 11.6 ± 2.7 vs 15.3 ± 4.9 (P < .01). QoV scores were better with the Intensity IOL, in particular for glare, halos, and starburst. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative series, the pentafocal Intensity IOL provided better intermediate vision and better defocus curve than the FineVision IOL, with comparable distance and near vision. The optical disturbances as reported by the patients were higher with the FineVision IOL. Additional studies will better define the aberration profile obtained with the pentafocal IOL. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(9):e604-e613.].

Efficacy and comfort following the implantation of extended depth of focus, multifocal, and monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients.

BACKGROUND: Extended depth of focus (EDOF) and multifocal (Multi) intraocular lenses (IOL) can provide a fixed distance of near vision, which may result in some discomfort for patients who prefer different near distances. The aim of this study was to compare the vision, comfortable near distance (CND) and visual comfort in patients who underwent implantation of EDOF, Multi, and monofocal (Mono) IOLs. METHODS: A total of 100 eyes were implanted with Tecnis ZXR00, ZMB00 or ZCB00 IOLs. Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity (UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA, respectively), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), the fluctuations of CND, the ability to see at comfortable or standard near distance and visual comfort were evaluated at 3-month postoperative. RESULTS: At 3 months postoperative, the EDOF and Multi groups showed non-inferiority compared to the Mono group in the UDVA (P > 0.05) and CDVA (P > 0.05) but superiority in the UNVA (P < 0.001). The UIVA was better in the EDOF group, with comparable results for the Multi and Mono groups. There was no difference in preoperative and postoperative CND in the three groups. The CND visual acuity (CNDVA) was lower than the UNVA in the three groups, especially in the EDOF and Multi groups (P < 0.05). The CND effectively improved patients' near visual comfort and visual clarity, except for one patient in the Multi group who complained of severe fatigue and was unable to tolerate the experience at month 3. CONCLUSION: The EDOF and Multi IOLs achieved excellent visual quality and superior UNVA compared to the Mono IOL, but the CNDVA was significantly inferior to the UNVA. Patients' near visual experience can be effectively improved at their CND.

Comparing clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens in patients with and without prior history of laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia.

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens in patients with and without prior history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). METHODS: A retrospective study included patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery and PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) implantation. Patients were grouped: Group A for patients with history of LASIK and Group B for patients without history of LASIK. Postoperative outcome measures comprised distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity, manifest refraction, defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, patient satisfaction, and the rate of spectacle independence. RESULTS: A total of 288 eyes (144 patients) were included: 132 eyes in Group A and 156 eyes in Group B. At 6 months post-surgery, patients of both groups achieved a continuous satisfying visual acuity from 33 cm to distance. 73% of eyes in Group A and 75% of eyes in Group B were within ± 0.50 D of emmetropia (P > 0.05). The percentages of eyes within ± 1.00 D of emmetropia were 98% for Group A and 96% for Group B (P > 0.05). The total scores of satisfaction were 52.58 ± 3.46 for Group A and 53.23 ± 3.46 for Group B (P > 0.05). Most of patients (98% for Group A, 99% for Group B) were able to be spectacle independence for daily living. 53% of patients in Group A and 51% in Group B experiencd mild to moderate negative visual symptoms, which made it a little or moderate difficult to drive at night. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract patients with and without history of LASIK could safely undergo implantation of the PanOptix IOLs, which results in precise refractive outcomes and satisfactory visual acuity. Although contrast sensitivity decreased and some negative visual symptoms were observed, patients' satisfaction was generally high due to the high rate of spectacles independence. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups.

Combination of a monofocal and one type of extended depth-of-focus (zonal refractive) intraocular lens (COMEDI) in bilateral cataract surgery protocol: a monocentric, randomised, parallel group trial in cataract surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Modern intraocular lens (IOL) designs for cataract treatment can be broadly classified into three focal range categories; monofocal, extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and multifocal IOLs.Monofocal IOLs allow spectacle independence for one focus, typically distance. In contrast, EDOF IOLs provide a greater range of vision, extending spectacle independence to intermediate distance, while multifocal IOLs enable spectacle independence at all distances with the drawback of positive dysphotopsias and reduced contrast perception.EDOF lenses are an attractive compromise with fewer dysphotopic side effects than multifocals. The purpose of this study is to assess whether implanting an EDOF IOL in the second eye of a patient who received a monofocal IOL in the first eye can improve spectacle independence while maintaining the same optical quality as bilateral monofocal IOL implantation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study compares combined monofocal and EDOF IOL implantation versus bilateral monofocal IOL implantation in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in a monocentric, randomised, patient-masked and assessor-masked, parallel group trial in 88 bilateral cataract patients. The primary outcome measure is binocular photopic distance corrected intermediate visual acuity. The secondary outcome measures include (un)corrected distance and near visual acuity, reading speed at intermediate distance, quality of visual function assessments, patient-reported spectacle independence, contrast sensitivity, aberrometry, stereopsis and straylight measurement at the 3-month follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospital of Brussels (BUN 23219_EDOF). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06002399.

Clinical Outcomes of Enhanced Monofocal (Mono-EDOF) Intraocular Lenses with the Mini-Monovision Technique versus Trifocal Intraocular Lenses: A Comparative Study

Objectives: It was aimed to compare the clinical results of the mini-monovision technique (MMV) with enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) and trifocal IOL applications and to evaluate the intereye differences in the MMV group. Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational study evaluated the results of cataract surgeries performed on 48 eyes of 24 patients. Surgeries in Group I were performed for MMV using the RayOne EMV IOL targeting emmetropia in dominant eyes (Group IA) and -0.70 diopter (D) myopia in non-dominant eyes (Group IB), while those in Group II were performed with the AcrySof® IQ PanOptixTM TNFT00 IOL targeting emmetropia. After the surgeries, uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near distance visual acuities, contrast sensitivity measurements, and defocus curves were determined. Subjective evaluation was made with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). The groups were compared statistically. Results: Postoperative refraction mean spherical equivalent was -0.25±0.22 D, -0.67±0.33 D, and -0.16±0.31 D in the three groups, respectively. A statistical difference was identified in favor of Group IA for uncorrected distance vision and in favor of Group IB for near vision (p<0.05). There was no difference in bilateral uncorrected visions in Groups I and II (p>0.05). While contrast sensitivity was better in Group I at all spatial frequencies (p<0.05), better vision was achieved in the defocus curve at distance in Group IA and at near in Group IB. In the binocular evaluation, it was seen that Groups I and II had similar results. In the subjective evaluation, NEI-VFQ-25 scores were 94.1±4.2/100 in Group I and 91.5±3.0/100 in Group II at 6 months (p>0.05). Photic complaints were significantly more common in Group II. Conclusion: With the MMV technique, it was observed that enhanced monofocal lenses provided better visual acuity at all distances and less dysphotopsia than trifocal lenses, whereas trifocal lenses were better at providing independence from glasses.

Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After Bilateral Refractive Lens Exchange With a Trifocal Intraocular Lens in 5,226 Patients With Presbyopia.

PURPOSE: To assess visual and refractive outcomes and visual function after bilateral RayOne Trifocal toric and nontoric intraocular lens (IOL) (Rayner) implantation in patients with presbyopia. METHODS: Charts of patients with presbyopia who underwent refractive lens exchange with bilateral implantation of the RayOne Trifocal IOL (toric and non-toric) were retrospectively reviewed. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated at 3 months. Patient satisfaction, spectacle independence, and visual disturbance profile were assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 5,226 patients were assigned to one of two groups: 1,010 patients had toric IOL implantation (toric group) and 4,216 patients received the non-toric model (non-toric group). Mean ± standard deviation visual acuity at 3 months for the toric group was binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 0.07 ± 0.11 logMAR, monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR, binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm of 0.10 ± 0.09 logMAR, binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 40 cm of 0.13 ± 0.12 logMAR, postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) of -0.21 ± 0.47 diopters (D), and cylinder of -0.34 ± 0.40 D. The non-toric group had binocular UDVA of 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR, monocular CDVA of 0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR, binocular UNVA of 0.10 ± 0.08 logMAR, binocular UIVA of 0.13 ± 0.11 logMAR, SE of -0.08 ± 0.38 D, and cylinder of -0.28 ± 0.34 D. No statistically significant differences were found in achieving spectacle independence and there were high levels of satisfaction in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis with more than 5,000 patients, both the toric and non-toric RayOne Trifocal IOL models provided good visual performance at all distances, resulting in excellent levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(7):e468-e479.].

Visual performance, safety, and patient satisfaction after binocular clear lens extraction and trifocal intraocular lens implantation in Chinese presbyopic patients.

BACKGROUND: Addressing presbyopia in the aging population, particularly in non-cataractous patients, remains a challenge. This study evaluates the outcomes of refractive lens exchange (RLE) with AT LISA tri 839MP trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in a Chinese presbyopic population without cataracts. METHODS: The study included 164 eyes from 82 patients undergoing bilateral RLE at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Comprehensive evaluations encompassed visual acuities, refraction, ocular aberrometry, and subjective outcomes via the VF-14 questionnaire. The focus was on postoperative visual performance, refractive outcomes, safety, objective optical quality, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: 100%, 90.2%, and 89.0% of patients achieved binocular UDVA, UNVA, and UIVA of logMAR 0.1 or better at 6 months postoperatively. 97.6% of eyes were within ± 1.00 D of emmetropia postoperatively. Optical quality assessments showed increases in modulation transfer function and Strehl ratios (p < 0.05). High-order aberrations decreased significantly (p < 0.05). Despite the high incidence of posterior capsule opacification (83.2%), managed with early Nd: YAG capsulotomy, no other severe complications were reported. Patient-reported outcomes indicated high satisfaction, with an average VF-14 score of 94.3 ± 10.2 and 93.5% achieving complete spectacle independence. Halo (66.2%) was the most commonly reported optical phenomena, followed by glare (18.2%), and starburst (7.8%) after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral RLE with trifocal IOLs in presbyopic patients without cataracts significantly improves visual acuity and reduces ocular aberrations in presbyopic patients. The procedure offers high patient satisfaction and spectacle independence, though it requires careful patient selection and management of expectations regarding potential photic phenomena.

Modified femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate keratotomy for managing low corneal astigmatism using trifocal intraocular lens implantation in Chinese cataract patients.

To evaluate the visual outcome and astigmatic correction following trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation using the modified femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate keratotomy (FSAK) in Chinese cataract patients with low astigmatism. This retrospective study included consecutive cataract patients with regular corneal astigmatism ranging from 0.75 to 1.5 D who underwent FSAK combined with the trifocal IOL implantation between November 2020 and September 2022. Monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and refractive data were collected at the 3-month follow-up. The pre- and post-operative high-order aberrations (HOAs) were recorded. The variation in astigmatism was analyzed using Alpins vector analysis. A total of 27 eyes from 23 patients were analyzed. The monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (5 m) at the 3-month follow-up was 0.04 ± 0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), which was significantly improved compared with the preoperative value of 0.95 ± 0.51 logMAR (P <.001). The corneal astigmatism was significantly reduced from 1.24 ± 0.42 D to 0.49 ± 0.34 D (P <.001). The target-induced astigmatism (TIA) was 1.25 ± 0.43 D, the surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was 1.16 ± 0.52 D, and the difference vector (DV) was 0.5 ± 0.34 D. The magnitude of error (ME) (difference between SIA and TIA) was -0.1 ± 0.41 D, and the correction index (CI) (ratio of SIA to TIA) was 0.93 ± 0.36. The angle of error was 3.92° ± 16.90°. Total HOA was reduced from 0.89 ± 1.11 to 0.41 ± 0.55 (P = 0.184), and the corneal HOA was lowered from 0.17 ± 0.18 to 0.10 ± 0.10 (P = 0.129). Implantation of trifocal IOL following the modified FSAK in Chinese cataract patients exhibited excellent visual efficacy and effectively reduced corneal astigmatism.

Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction.

BACKGROUND: Cataract, defined as an opacity of the lens in one or both eyes, is the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Cataract may initially be treated with new spectacles, but often surgery is required, which involves removing the cataract and placing a new artificial lens, usually made from hydrophobic acrylic. Recent advancements in intraocular lens (IOL) technology have led to the emergence of a diverse array of implantable lenses that aim to minimise spectacle dependence at all distances (near, intermediate, and distance). To assess the relative merits of these lenses, measurements of visual acuity are needed. Visual acuity is a measurement of the sharpness of vision at a distance of 6 metres (or 20 feet). Normal vision is 6/6 (or 20/20). The Jaegar eye card is used to measure near visual acuity. J1 is the smallest text and J2 is considered equivalent to 6/6 (or 20/20) for near vision. OBJECTIVES: To compare visual outcomes after implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) to those of extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs. To produce a brief economic commentary summarising recent economic evaluations that compare trifocal IOLs with EDOF IOLs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, and three trial registries on 15 June 2022. For our economic evaluation, we also searched MEDLINE and Embase using economic search filters to 15 June 2022, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) from 1968 up to and including 31 December 2014. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing trifocal and EDOF IOLs in adults undergoing cataract surgery. We did not include studies involving people receiving IOLs for correction of refractive error alone (or refractive lens exchange in the absence of cataract). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors working independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from the reports. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies that compared trifocal and EDOF lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. Three trifocal lenses (AcrySof IQ PanOptix, ATLISA Tri 839MP, FineVision Micro F) and one EDOF lens (TECNIS Symfony ZXR00) were evaluated. The studies took place in Europe and North America. Follow-up ranged from three to six months. Of the 239 enroled participants, 233 (466 eyes) completed follow-up and were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 68.2 years, and 64% of participants were female. In general, the risk of bias in the studies was unclear as methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly reported, and we judged one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes as low, downgrading for the risk of bias and for imprecision. In two studies involving a total of 254 people, there was little or no difference between trifocal and EDOF lenses for uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6. Sixty per cent of participants in both groups had uncorrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.88 to 1.27). Thirty-one per cent of the trifocal group and 38% of the EDOF group had corrected distance visual acuity worse than 6/6 (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39). In one study of 60 people, there were fewer cases of uncorrected near visual acuity worse than J2 in the trifocal group (3%) compared with the EDOF group (30%) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.65). In two studies, participants were asked about spectacle independence using subjective questionnaires. There was no evidence of either lens type being superior. One further study of 60 participants reported, "overall, 90% of patients achieved spectacle independence", but did not categorise this by lens type. All studies included postoperative patient-reported visual function, which was measured using different questionnaires. Irrespective of the questionnaire used, both types of lenses scored well, and there was little evidence of any important differences between them. Two studies included patient-reported ocular aberrations (glare and halos). The outcomes were reported in different ways and could not be pooled; individually, these studies were too small to detect meaningful differences in glare and halos between groups. One study reported no surgical complications. Three studies did not mention surgical complications. One study reported YAG capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification (PCO) in one participant (one eye) in each group. One study reported no PCO. Two studies did not report PCO. One study reported that three participants (one trifocal and two EDOF) underwent laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) to correct residual myopic refractive error or astigmatism. One study reported a subset of participants who were considering laser enhancement at the end of the study period (nine trifocal and two EDOF). Two studies did not report laser enhancement rates. No economic evaluation studies were identified for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Distance visual acuity after cataract surgery may be similar whether the lenses implanted are trifocal IOLs or EDOF (TECNIS Symfony) IOLs. People receiving trifocal IOLs may achieve better near vision and may be less dependent on spectacles for near vision. Both lenses were reported to have adverse subjective visual phenomena, such as glare and halos, with no meaningful difference detected between lenses.

Evaluation of visual and optical quality following phacoemulsification cataract surgery with diffractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation: An observational study.

The assessment of patient satisfaction following cataract surgery is heavily reliant on the evaluation of visual quality, specifically after the placement of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) under varying pupil conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the visual and optical clarity following cataract phacoemulsification and the use of Tecnis ZMB00 MIOL for implantation. The study involved 116 individuals (135 eyes) who received cataract phacoemulsification and underwent Tecnis ZMB00 MIOL implantation. Assessments were conducted 1 week and 3 months after the surgery. These assessments involved measuring uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for distant, intermediate, and near vision. Additionally, scatter light values and wavefront aberrations were measured under different aperture settings of 3 and 5 mm. There was no noticeable disparity in visual acuity between 1 week and 3 months after the surgery. After 3 months of surgery, there was a considerable decrease in scatter light values and spherical aberrations compared to the values observed 1 week after surgery, under the setting of a 5 mm aperture. Moreover, the modulation transfer function values showed a significant rise after 3 months following the surgery, particularly under the 5 mm aperture condition. The most substantial increase was observed at the intermediate spatial frequency of 20 cycles per degree (cpd), in comparison to the values obtained 1 week after the operation. The combination of cataract phacoemulsification and Tecnis ZMB00 MIOL implantation yielded favorable visual acuity at various distances for patients. Furthermore, enhancements in the measurements of scattered light, higher-order aberrations, and modulation transfer function values were noted 3 months after the surgical procedure, specifically under the condition of a 5 mm pupil. These findings suggest an increase in visual clarity and night vision to a certain degree.

Visual and Refractive Outcomes After Bi-aspheric Trifocal Toric Diffractive Intraocular Lens Implantation.

PURPOSE: To assess clinical outcomes after cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of a new bi-aspheric diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: Thirty patients underwent bilateral implantation of the Asqelio Trifocal Toric IOL (AST Products, Inc) and were evaluated 3 months postoperatively. Main outcomes included refractive error, photopic monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (UIVA, CDIVA) at 60 cm, and near (UNVA, CDNVA) at 40 cm visual acuities. Mesopic monocular and binocular CDNVA were also measured. Defocus curves, binocular contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare and rotational stability were determined. Patients completed Catquest-9SF and visual symptoms questionnaires. RESULTS: Average values of binocular photopic CDVA, CDIVA, and CDNVA, and mesopic CDNVA were -0.04 ± 0.06, 0.02 ± 0.08, 0.02 ± 0.07, and 0.22 ± 0.11 logMAR, respectively. All patients achieved cumulative CDVA ⩾ 20/25, and CDIVA and CDNVA of 20/32 or better. Binocular depth of focus was approximately 3.25 diopters (D). Mean postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.08 ± 0.26 D, with 95% of eyes within ±0.50 D. Mean postoperative refractive cylinder was -0.22 ± 0.27 D, with 91.67% of eyes within 0.50 D or less, respectively. IOL rotation averaged 0.25 ± 0.65 degrees, all eyes having rotation of less than 5 degrees. Contrast sensitivity was within or above normal levels under photopic and mesopic conditions, with or without glare, except for 12 cpd under mesopic conditions with glare. Questionnaire responses indicated 96.67% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with postoperative vision, and 80.00% to 96.67% reported no difficulty in different daily activities. CONCLUSIONS: The Asqelio Trifocal Toric IOL demonstrated favorable outcomes, providing excellent visual performance at all distances, precise refractive results, and remarkable rotational stability. Patients reported high satisfaction levels and minimal difficulty in daily activities. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(6):e407-e419.].

[Cautious application of multifocal intraocular lenses in children with congenital cataracts].

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in adult cataract surgery, yet they encounter many challenges in pediatric applications. This article elaborates on the difficulties in biometric measurements in children, the unpredictability of postoperative refraction outcomes, the lack of long-term spectacle independence in children with MIOLs, the absence of significant advantages in correcting childhood amblyopia, and the potential increase in the rate of secondary surgeries. Due to the insufficient clinical evidence supporting the use of MIOLs in children at present, it is proposed that MIOLs be cautiously applied to children with congenital cataracts in clinical practice. Further research in this area is encouraged.

Risk Factors for Corneal Monochromatic Aberrations and Implications for Multifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation.

PURPOSE: To discuss factors influencing corneal aberrations that might influence the optical quality after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were the main resources used to search the medical literature. An extensive search was performed to identify relevant articles concerning factors influencing the level of corneal aberrations as of August 27, 2023. The following keywords were used in various combinations: corneal, aberrations, defocus, astigmatism, spherical aberration, coma, trefoil, quadrafoil, intraocular lens, and IOL. RESULTS: Conclusive evidence is lacking regarding the correlation between age and changes in corneal aberrations. Patients with astigmatism have greater corneal higher-order aberrations than those with minimal astigmatism, particularly concerning trefoil and coma. Increased levels of corneal higher-order aberrations are noted following contact lens wear, in patients with dry eye disease, and with pterygium. Increased higher-order aberrations have been reported following corneal refractive surgery and for 3 months following trabeculectomy; regarding intraocular lens surgery, the results remain controversial. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors influence the level of corneal higher-order aberrations. Multifocal and extended depth-of-focus IOLs can share similarities in their optical properties, and the main difference arises in their design and performance with respect to spherical aberration. Preoperative evaluation is critical for proper IOL choice, particularly in corneas with risk of high levels of aberrations. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(6):e420-e434.].

Clinical results with a multifocal intraocular lens with a novel optical design.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the optical performance and safety of a new multifocal lens with a novel optical design featuring two additional foci (or intensifiers) in patients with cataract and presbyopia. METHODS: In this single-center, non-randomized prospective observational study, 31 patients underwent implantation of the new multifocal IOL between March 2020 and November 2021 at a tertiary clinical center in Buenos Aires and Ramos Mejia, Argentina. Postoperative examinations with emphasis on uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at distance and near and at two different intermediate distances (80 cm and 60 cm) were performed during the 3 postoperative months. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients who underwent implantation of the new IOL, 30 underwent bilateral surgery (61 eyes in total). At 3 months, all 61 eyes had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) of at least 0.15 logMAR; 57 eyes (93%) had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) of 0.1 logMAR and 27 eyes (44%) had an UCDVA of 0.0 logMAR. At 80 cm, 60 eyes (98%) had an uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA) of at least 0.1 log MAR and 48 eyes (79%) had an UCIVA of 0.0 logMAR. CONCLUSION: The new multifocal IOL with a novel optical concept (5 foci) showed a wide range of visual acuity especially at intermediate and near distances in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Uncorrected visual acuity was excellent at all tested distances, monocularly and binocularly, spectacle independence and patient satisfaction were high.

Fellow-Eye Comparison of Monocular Visual Outcomes Following Monofocal Extended Depth-of-Focus (EDOF) and Trifocal EDOF Intraocular Lens Implantation.

PURPOSE: To compare intraindividual monocular visual performance of a monofocal extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) and a trifocal EDOF intraocular lens (IOL) following bilateral cataract surgery. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, fellow-eye comparison clinical trial. METHODS: All patients received uneventful bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of the monofocal EDOF Isopure IOL in the dominant eye and the trifocal EDOF FineVision Triumf IOL in the nondominant eye. Intraindividual monocular comparison included visual acuity at various distances, defocus curves, internal total higher-order aberration (HOA), spherical aberration (SA) Z(4.0), IOL decentration, and tilt. Additionally, subjective outcomes were evaluated using Halo and Glare simulation and the Seven-Item Visual-Functioning Index questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients (50 eyes) were included. Intraindividual monocular best-corrected distance visual acuity, distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and best-corrected near visual acuity were comparable (P > .05). However, monocular contrast acuity (P = .019), distance-corrected near visual acuity (P < .001), and defocus curves at defocus levels of 0.0 D (P = .005) and between -1.5 and -4.0 D (P < .001) differed significantly. At 5 mm, internal HOA and SA Z(4.0) were significantly different (P < .001) and comparable at 3-mm pupil diameter, as were IOL tilt and decentration (P > .05). CONCLUSION: In this combined fellow-eye comparison, near vision was significantly better with the trifocal EDOF IOL. The monofocal EDOF IOL demonstrated similar distance and intermediate visual performance as the trifocal EDOF IOL. Overall, low values of photic phenomena and visual impairment were observed.

Managing dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation through lens exchange using monofocal or alternative multifocal IOLs.

PURPOSE: To manage patient dissatisfaction following multifocal intraocular lens (MF-IOL) implantation by IOL exchange with either a monofocal or an alternative MF-IOL, and to compare outcomes in these two groups. METHODS: MF-IOL exchange was performed in 32 patients (64 eyes) with neuroadaptation failure. The MF-to-MF group involved patients who had a MF-IOL exchanged with another MF-IOL of a different optical profile and the MF-to-MO group involved patients who had a MF-IOL exchanged to a monofocal IOL. Visual outcomes and complications were analysed. The Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, Visual Function Index (VF-14) and its Rasch-revised version (VF-8R) were also used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the QoV scores between the two groups, both preoperatively and postoperatively. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences in VF-14 scores between both groups (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, there were statistically significant differences in VF-14 (total score, intermediate vision and near vision) in favour of the MF-to-MF group (p < 0.05). The postoperative VF-8R score in the MF-to-MF group was significantly better than the MF-to-MO group (p ≤ 0.001). Uncorrected and corrected near as well as corrected distance visual acuities were significantly better (p < 0.05) in the MF-to-MF group compared to the MF-to-MO group at 3 months. CONCLUSION: Patient dissatisfaction and neuroadaptation failure following MF-IOL implantation can be managed by an IOL exchange with an alternative optical design of MF-IOL or a monofocal IOL. Although, in the current study, the MF-to-MF group showed some better postoperative results, both options are feasible solutions.