Posters

Comparing two trifocal intraocular lenses with intermediate foci at 60 and at 80 cm

Poster Details

First Author: E.Ghyczy-Carlborg THE NETHERLANDS

Co Author(s):    I. van der Meulen   R. Lapid-Gortzak                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare a hydrophobic trifocal non-apodized IOL with an intermediate focus at 60 cm to a hydrophilic apodized trifocal IOL with an intermediate focus of 80 cm.

Setting:

Private refractive surgery clinic: Retina Total Eye Care, Driebergen, affiliated with the Department of Ophthalmology Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the The Netherlands.

Methods:

Retrospective consecutive case series of patients who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification. In the study group the IOL AT LISA tri 839MP was implanted and in the control the AcrySof IQ PanOptix. Outcome measures are visual acuity, refraction, defocus curves and incidence of side effects.

Results:

The study group included 44 eyes, and the control group 114 eyes. Postoperatively there was no clinically significant difference between the groups. AT LISA vs. PanOptix : UCDVA -0.02 ±0.07 vs. -0.00±0.11, CDVA -0.08 ±0.08 vs. -0.06 vs. 0.07, NVA at 40 cm 0.00 ± 0.01vs 0.02 ±0.37, SE 0.017 ± 0.29 vs. 0.03 ± 0.32, Δ target -SE 0.07 ±0.29 vs. -0.04 ± 0.33, MAE 0.17 ±0.19 vs. 0.22 ± 0.23. No adverse events occurred. The defocus curves were better for the PanOptix IOL between -1,5 D and -4 D.

Conclusions:

Both trifocal IOL's perform similarly in terms of achieved distance and near visual acuity and refraction, visual acuities. In terms of intermediate vision the PanOptix IOL performs better from -1,5D to more myopic on the defocus curve. This reflects the different design of the IOLs. Both lenses are good options in patients with a desire for less spectacle dependence.

Financial Disclosure:

receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company