Lisbon 2017 Delegate Registration Programme Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellites OneWorld Travel Discount
escrs app advert

Comparison of clinical outcomes of a new trifocal hydrophobic and a hydrophilic IOL

Search Title by author or title

Session Details

Session Title: Presented Poster Session: Cataract Surgery Outcomes

Venue: Poster Village: Pod 1

First Author: : P.Stodulka CZECH REPUBLIC

Co Author(s): :                  

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Investigation of clinical outcomes of a recently introduced hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens (FineVision HP, PhysIOL, Belgium) and comparison to a hydrophilic trifocal intraocular lens (Micro F, PhysIOL, Belgium) predicate with a similar optic design.

Setting:

Gemini Eye Clinics, Zlin, Czech Republic

Methods:

Ninety eyes with clinically significant cataract were enrolled in this prospective study. The eyes received either a recently CE approved hydrophobic trifocal intraocular lens (PhysIOL FineVision HP, 50 eyes) or a hydrophilic trifocal intraocular lens (PhysIOL Micro F, 40 eyes). So both lense are from the same manufacturer with similar optic design and the main difference is the material. All patients were followed up postoperatively for 3 months and clinical data was collected on: Uncorrected visual acuities at near, intermediate and far distance (UNVA, UIVA, UDVA); Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and Defocus Curve.

Results:

The uncorrected visual acuities for near, intermediate and far distance are 1.13±0.40 Jaeger; 3.16±2.03 Jaeger and 0.12±0.13 logMAR, respectively for the hydrophobic lens and 1.53±2.06 Jaeger; 3.35±2.15 Jaeger and 0.23±0.20 logMAR, respectively for the hydrophilic lens. Statistical analysis shows a significant difference on UCVA (p<0.01) but no statistical difference on UNVA and UIVA (p>0.05). On CDVA, a value of 0.03±0.05 logMAR was obtained on FineVision HP and 0.02±0.08 logMAR on Micro F (p>0.05). The defocus curve showed continuum VA, smaller than 0.25 LogMAR in the range -3.0D to +0.5D with no statistical difference between the IOLs.

Conclusions:

The implantation of both trifocal lenses from the same manufacturer (PhysIOL, Belgium) led to a very good restoration of near, intermediate and distance visual acuity. Except for UDVA with superior results on the hydrophobic lens, no statistical significant differences were seen on the visual acuity outcomes. This new hydrophobic trifocal IOL expands the variety of available trifocal IOLs with the chance to optimize the IOL choice to surgeons preference and/or patients needs. Mid- and longterm clinical rfesults of this hydrophobic IOL need to be assessed longer follow-up studies.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE

Back to previous