Comparison Of Visual Outcomes Of An Enhanced Monofocal, Trifocal And Extended-Depth-Of-Focus Intraocular Lenses
Published 2022 - 40th Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO143 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/ak1c-3g15
Authors: Laura Kapitanovaite* 1 , Dalia Zaliuniene 2 , Reda Zemaitiene 2
1Department of Ophthalmology,Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Medical Academy Faculty of Medicine ,Kaunas,Lithuania, 2Department of Ophthalmology,Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Medical Academy Faculty of Medicine,Kaunas,Lithuania
Purpose
To compare clinical performance of an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL), extended-depth-of-focus IOL (EDOF) and trifocal IOL.
Setting
All implantations and follow-ups were performed at the Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics.
Methods
A prospective study of 25 patients (40 eyes), without ocular comorbidities, undergoing uneventful cataract surgery done by two experienced surgeons. One of the following IOLs was implanted: an enhanced monofocal (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 (n=20)), EDOF (Tecnis Symfony ZXR00 (n=10)) or trifocal IOL (Alcon Vision IQ Panoptix TFNT00 (n=10)). Emmetropia was targeted for all eyes. Follow up exams were performed 2-6 months after the surgery. Results of uncorrected visual acuity (VA) (logMAR) for distance (6 meters), intermediate (66 cm) and near (40 cm), defocus curves, photopic contrast sensitivity (CS; Optec 6500 Functional Acuity Contrast Test) and halometry (Halo v1.0 programme) were documented.
Results
Post-operative distance VA was the same between different IOLs (0.04±0.06) (p=0.92). Intermediate VA was also similar (Eyhance (0.13±0.03), Panoptix (0.1±0.03), Symfony (0.07±0.02)) (p>0.05). Near VA was significantly better for Panoptix (0.07±0.03) compared to Eyhance (0.46±0.03), and Symfony (0.29±0.05) (p<0.05). No difference in CS was observed between the 3 IOLs at all frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12 and 18 cpd). Halometry results, expressed as a disturbance index, were the same for Eyhance and Symfony IOLs (p=0.72), but showed worse results for Panoptix IOL (p=0.01). Defocus curves over -2.5 D were better for Panoptix and Symfony IOLs than Eyhance (p>0.05), but at -3.0 D and -3.5 D Panoptix showed better results than Symfony IOL (p<0.05).
Conclusions
All IOLs showed good visual performance at far and intermediate distance, with good contrast sensitivity in photic conditions. Panoptix IOL showed better visual performance at near distance compared to an enhanced monofocal and EDOF IOLs, but it also induced most photic phenomenons compared with others. In order to achieve patient satisfaction, it is important to explain the results expected with each IOL.