Posters

Comparison of the functional results of three different trifocal lenses

Poster Details

First Author: R.Lucchesi GERMANY

Co Author(s):    I. Kaiser   C. Herbers   J. Winters   M. Moftah   S. Abdassalam   F. Kretz     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Prospective study to evaluate the refractive and functional results of 3 different trifocal IOLs in 3 and 6 months after implantation.

Setting:

Augentagesklnik Rheine, Germany

Methods:

In a prospective, ongoing study 81 eyes (43 patients) after bilateral cataract surgery (target: emmetropia) with implantation of 3 different trifocal IOLs (PhysIOL FineVision Pod F, PhysIOL FineVision Pod F GF, Alcon AcrySof Panoptix) were examined 3 - 6 months postoperatively. The spherical equivalent (SE), the visual acuity (VA) (UDVA, CDVA [4m], UIVA, DCIVA [70 cm], UNVA, DNVA [35 cm]), the defocus curve, the contrast vision, the Halo & Glare test (at the 6 month follow up) were evaluated.

Results:

Panoptix: SE: 0.61 [+/- 0.26]. Mean VA: 0.1 [+/- 0.12] (UDVA), 0.0 [+/- 0.07] (CDVA), 0.08 [+/- 0.04] (UIVA), 0.03 [+/- 0.13] (DCIVA), 0.23 [+/- 0.04] (UNVA), 0.13 [+/- 0.08] (DNVA). Pod FGF: SE: from 0.31 [+/- 0.32]. Mean VA: 0.07 [+/- 0.07] (UDVA), 0.05 [+/- 0.08] (CDVA), 0.02 [+/- 0.07] (UIVA), 0.03 [+/- 0.07] (DCIVA), 0.22 [+/- 0.11] (UNVA), 0.08 [+/- 0.07] (DNVA). Pod F: SE: -0.08 [+/- 0.4]. Mean VA: 0.03 [+/- 0.09] (UDVA), 0.0 [+/- 0.08] (CDVA), 0.0 [+/- 0.08] (UIVA), 0.03 [+/- 0.09] (DCIVA), 0.13 [+/- 0.17] (UNVA), 0.1 [+/- 0.08] (DNVA) (0.03 [+/- 0.09] (CDVA)

Conclusions:

The functional results of all three intraocular lenses show a good visual acuity at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, with a good intermediate visual acuity at 70 cm, as well as acceptable results at close range. The defocus curves of all 3 lenses show a stable visual acuity in the range of -2.5 dpt to +0.50 dpt.

Financial Disclosure:

... gains financially from competing product or procedure, ... 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, ... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... is employed by a competing company, ... has significant investment interest in a company producing, developing or supplying product or procedure presented