Stability and visual quality yielded by 3 intraocular trifocal lenses having the same optical zone design but differing in material and/or toricity

Session Details

Session Title: Pseudophakic IOLs: Multifocal I

Session Date/Time: Monday 12/09/2016 | 08:00-10:30

Paper Time: 09:30

Venue: Auditorium A

First Author: : F.Poyales SPAIN

Co Author(s): :    N. Garzon   D. Pizarro   S. Cobreces   A. Hernandez   D. Jimnez        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare rotational stability, centration and visual quality provided by 3 trifocal lens models that have the same optical zone design but different material composition and/or toricity.

Setting:

IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Spain

Methods:

The study included 78 patients with symmetric bilateral IOL implantation. The lenses under evaluation were all trifocal IOLs: a spherical lens with 26% HA (POD F), a similar lens but having a toric design (POD FT) and a different trifocal lens with 25% HA material (FineVision/MicroF). The lenses’ rotational stability and centration were measured by means of the PIOLET software, which relies on recording and image processing techniques to determine lens rotation and centration based on slit-lamp images. Moreover, we also assessed patients’ visual quality by means of 25, 40 and 80-cm VA tests, contrast sensitivity, halometry and defocus curves.

Results:

The best centration results were achieved with the POD models (p < 0.05). As for lens rotation, it was below 5º for all IOL models. Regarding far-distance uncorrected VA, all subjects attained at least 0.2 logMAR. The defocus curves were, for all three lens models, always equal or above 0.2 logMAR within the 30 cm-to-infinity (far distance) range. The best halometry results were obtained with the Micro F model. Finally, as far as contrast sensitivity is concerned, all three IOLs yielded very similar results, with the POD model slightly outperforming the other two. However, the differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions:

All three IOL models yield excellent visual results at far, near as well as intermediate distances. The POD F and POD FT models, with their double C-loop design, yielded the best results centration and rotation-wise, but the differences had no clinical relevance.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE