Comparison of clinical outcomes after bilateral implantation of three different trifocal intraocular lenses

Session Details

Session Title: Multifocal IOLs II

Session Date/Time: Monday 16/09/2019 | 08:30-10:30

Paper Time: 08:48

Venue: Free Paper Forum: Podium 1

First Author: : R.Khoramnia GERMANY

Co Author(s): :    F. Kretz   M. Gerl   D. Breyer   H. Son   G. Auffarth                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes after bilateral implantation of three different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOL).

Setting:

IVCRC.net Dept. of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Germany Augenärzte Gerl, Kretz und Kollegen, Rheine, Germany Augenärzte Gerl, Kretz und Kollegen, Ahaus, Germany Breyer, Kaymak & Klabe Augenchirurgie, Dusseldorf, Germany

Methods:

In this on-going prospective multicentre study, patients who underwent cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange received bilateral implantation of hydrophilic POD F, hydrophobic POD F GF (both PhysIOL, Belgium), or hydrophobic PanOptix (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) IOLs. Follow-up examinations included: uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuities (CDVA), uncorrected (UIVA) and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuities (DCIVA), and uncorrected (UNVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuities (DCNVA). Furthermore, distance-corrected defocus curves were recorded between -4.0D and +1.0D and contrast sensitivity testing was performed under mesopic and photopic light conditions. Photic phenomena were also evaluated using a computer-based Halo and Glare simulator.

Results:

The outcomes on 58 patients (116 eyes) three months postoperative yielded mean UDVA values of 0.05±0.14, 0.10±0.12, and 0.10±0.15 logMAR for POD F, POD F GF, and PanOptix IOLs, respectively. Mean DCIVA values were 0.09±0.13, 0.13±0.13, and 0.10±0.15 logMAR for POD F, POD F GF, and PanOptix, accordingly. For DCNVA, the values were 0.13±0.16, 0.14±0.17, and 0.16±0.10 logMAR for POD F, POD F GF, and PanOptix, respectively. The differences in visual acuity were not significant (p>0.05). Significant differences (p<0.05) were found on photopic (6cpd and 12cpd) and mesopic contrast sensitivity (12cpd) with beneficial outcomes for the hydrophilic POD F lens.

Conclusions:

The three trifocal IOLs successfully restored good vision at far, intermediate, and near distances with minor differences in the clinical outcomes. The defocus curves for all lenses reveal a broad defocus range and very comparable courses. Patients reported comparable levels of photic phenomena as well as a high rate of satisfaction and spectacle independence. The hydrophilic material used in POD F showed a tendency towards better outcomes but this observation needs to be statistically confirmed with larger patient numbers and longer follow up.

Financial Disclosure:

receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, receives non monetary benefits from a competing company, receives non monetary benefits from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company