Copenhagen 2016 Registration Programme Exhibitor Information Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Glaucoma Day 2016 Hotel Star Alliance
title

10 - 14 Sept. 2016, Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

This Meeting has been awarded 27 CME credits

 

escrs app advert yo advert

Posters

Search Title by author or title

Comparison of a trifocal hydrophobic IOL and a trifocal hydrophilic IOL

Poster Details

First Author: R. Lapid-Gortzak NETHERLANDS

Co Author(s):    J. van der Linden   C. Nieuwendaal   A. Abulafia   I. van der Meulen           

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare the outcomes between 2 trifocal IOLs in terms of visual acuity, refraction, defocus curves, incidence of halos, Nd-YAG posterior capsulotomy, and satisfaction.

Setting:

Private Refractive Surgery Clinic, Retina Total Eye Care, Driebergen, the Netherlands

Methods:

Comparative non-randomized case cohort study. In each group 14 patients (28 eyes) were consecutively implanted with either a hydrophobic trifocal non-apodized IOL, the PanOptix (Alcon, USA) in the study group, and a hydrophilic apodized trifocal IOL or the AT MP839 Tri (Zeiss, Germany) in the control group. Outcomes measures at 3 months are reported.

Results:

At 3 months postoperatively, the study group had the mean UCDA of LogMAR -0.02 + 0.08, and a mean CDVA was -0.06 + 0.07, with a mean postoperative SE of 0.08D + 0.27. In the control group UCDA was -0.01 + 0.07, CDVA -0.08 + 0.05, and a SE of 0.03D + 0.31. Halos were reported in 3 and 6 patients respectively. A posterior capsulotomy was done at 3 months in 4 and 1 eye respectively. The study IOL performed better on the defocus curve between -1.5D and -2.0D (67 and 50 cm), all other point were comparable.

Conclusions:

In terms of distance and near uncorrected visual acuity at 40 cm both IOLs performed comparably. At the distance between 50-67 cm the newer trifocal IOL performed better. In the study group, 4x as many YAG capsulotomies were done, while in the control group incidence of halos was higher. More study needs to be done comparing these lenses.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE

Back to Poster listing