ESCRS - PP13.03 - Near Visual Performance And Intraocular Aberrometry In Patients Implanted With Monofocal, Trifocal And Extended Depth Of Focus Intraocular Lenses

Near Visual Performance And Intraocular Aberrometry In Patients Implanted With Monofocal, Trifocal And Extended Depth Of Focus Intraocular Lenses

Published 2023 - 41st Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PP13.03 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/4053-7107

Authors: Raquel Félix* 1 , João Gil 1 , Jorge Henriques 1 , Andreia Rosa 1 , Joaquim Murta 1

1Department of Ophthalmology,Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra (CHUC),Coimbra,Portugal;Clinical Academic Center of Coimbra (CAAC),Coimbra,Portugal;Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra (FMUC),Coimbra,Portugal

Purpose

To compare near and intermediate visual acuity, reading speed and wavefront aberrometry after implantation of different intraocular lens (IOL) models: monofocal (M-IOL), trifocal (T-IOL) and extended depth of focus IOLs (EDOF-IOL).

Setting

Single center study, set in Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Methods

A total of 90 eyes from 45 patients, with a follow-up of 6 months after bilateral IOL implantation, were included in this study. Near and intermediate visual acuity were determined for each eye, using the patients’ distance optical correction (DCNVA and DCIVA, respectively). Monocular near visual acuity was also assessed while wearing near optical correction (CNVA). Binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) was determined for each patient. Reading speed (RS) was evaluated binocularly for each patient using the Portuguese version of the Radner reading chart. Wavefront aberrometry was performed in all patients using iTrace (Tracey™ Technologies, Texas, USA).

Results

44 eyes received the Acrysof® M-IOL, 24 eyes the Clareon Vivity® EDOF-IOL, and 22 eyes the Panoptix® T-IOL (all by Alcon). Mean age was 65.1±8.4 years. There was no significant difference in RS between all IOL models (p=0.872). DCNVA, DCIVA and UNVA were better in the Panoptix® group, followed by the Vivity® group and finally the Acrysof® group (p<0.001). CNVA was similar between M-IOLs and EDOF-IOLs, with the T-IOLs showing better CNVA (p=0.054). As for wavefront aberrometry, the mean total root mean square (RMS) was 0.35±0.62µ for a pupil size of 3mm, with no significant differences between groups (p=0.152). We found no significant correlation between CNVA and RMS (p=0.891), between RS and RMS (p=0.790), or between CNVA and RS (p=0.431).

Conclusions

T-IOL provide better near vision than EDOF-IOL, and both T-IOL and EDOF-IOL provide better vision than M-IOL, however that does not necessarily translate into faster reading speed. The differences in aberrometry between the 3 IOL models were not significant.