Comparison of visual performance and patient satisfaction in patients implanted with diffractive trifocal IOLs with similar optic design but differing in the IOL material

Session Details

Session Title: Presented Poster Session: Enlarged Depth of Focus vs Multifocal IOLs

Venue: Poster Village: Pod 1

First Author: : F.Poyales SPAIN

Co Author(s): :    N. Garzón   Y. Zhou   R. Pérez                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare clinical outcomes in a randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing cataract surgery who were bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). The lenses have a very similar optical design with additional powers of +3.5D for near and +1.75D for intermediate vision but consist of different IOL materials (hydrophobic and hydrophilic)

Setting:

IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain

Methods:

46 patients were involved in this study and randomized to receive a bilateral implantation of hydrophilic trifocal IOLs, POD F or hydrophobic trifocal lenses, POD GF (both PhysIOL, Liége, Belgium). Clinical outcomes were measured at 1 week, one month and 3 months, depending on the tests. The outcomes measured included monocular and binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA at 70cm), and near (DCNVA at 35cm) visual acuity, refraction, edge dysphotopsia, objective quality of vision, contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, halometry and patient reported outcomes including patient satisfaction

Results:

At the final study visit, mean values for CDVA, UDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA were 0.01±0.02, 0.04±0.06, 0.11±0.08, and 0.11±0.10 logMAR, respectively for POD F and 0.02±0.03, 0.09±0.14, 0.13±0.09, 0.11±0.10, respectively for POD F GF (all p>0.05). The defocus assessment shows a continuous curve with a defocus range (≤ 0.3 logMAR) of approx. 30cm to infinity in both groups. Halometry was >0.85 for all patients and both groups showed similar contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. At 3 months, no patient had edge dysphotopia and a high satisfaction rate was observed with no statistical differences between the groups

Conclusions:

Implantation of the hydrophilic POD F and hydrophobic POD F GF trifocal IOLs allows for a safe and efficient restoration of near, intermediate, and far visual acuity on patients undergoing IOL implantation without suffering contrast sensitivity. Clinical outcomes show no statistically significant differences between both lenses 1 and 3 months after implantation. This equally good clinical performance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal lenses allows the surgeon to chose the IOL material based on personal preferences or patients’ need.

Financial Disclosure:

None