Comparison of visual performance of monofocal intraocular lenses with different asphericities

Objective@#To compare the visual performance and patient-reported outcomes of three types of monofocal intraocular lenses (IOL) with different asphericities.@*Methods@#This cross-sectional, comparative study comprised of 62 pseudophakic eyes divided into three groups corresponding to the IOL that they were previously implanted with (Tecnis ZCB00 negative aspheric IOL, EnVista MX60 neutral aspheric IOL and Akreos Adapt spheric IOL). Mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), best-corrected far visual acuity (BCVA), spherical aberration (SA), contrast sensitivity (SC), halo and starburst, and responses to a qualitative questionnaire (NEI-RQL) were measured.@*Results@#There was no significant difference in MRSE (P=0.74) and BCVA (P=0.52) among the three groups. There was a statistically significant difference (P=0.00) in mean internal (lens) SA, measured through a 5mm pupil, among Tecnis (-0.150 μm), EnVista (+0.022 μm) and Akreos Adapt (+0.094 μm). Compared to the Akreos Adapt, the Tecnis and EnVista groups had significantly better CS at 6 CPD and 12 CPD under mesopic testing without glare (P= 0.01) and at 6 CPD mesopic testing with glare (P=0.04). Halo scores were insignificant among the three groups. However, starburst scores were significantly worse in the Akreos Adapt IOL than the Tecnis and EnVista (P=0.01). There was no difference in questionnaire responses among the three groups.@*Conclusion@#The negative aspheric and neutral aspheric lenses showed significantly lower SA resulting in better CS in mesopic conditions and better starburst scores. MRSE, BCVA and subjective satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of the type of monofocal intraocular lens

A comparative evaluation of visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes of three diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses

@#OBJECTIVE: To compare the visual, refractive, and patient-reported outcomes of eyes implanted with one of 3 trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, comparative, non-interventional study wherein subjects implanted with FineVision Micro F, AT LISA tri 839MP or AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal IOL after phacoemulsification were recruited. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and corrected visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate and near vision, contrast sensitivity, modulated transfer function (MTF) values and questionnaire answers were compared among the 3 groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Fifty-seven (57) eyes were included in the study: 21 eyes with FineVision (group A), 21 eyes with LISA tri (group B), and 15 eyes with PanOptix IOL (group C). The post-operative mean manifest spherical equivalent was -0.01D, -0.07D, and 0.05D, respectively (p=0.083). Uncorrected distance VA and best-corrected distance VA were similar among the groups. Groups A and C had better uncorrected and corrected intermediate VA at 80 cm and at 60 cm compared to group B. Group A had significantly better uncorrected near visual acuity than groups B and C (p=0.032). Mesopic contrast sensitivity testing showed group C had higher contrast sensitivities without glare in at the spatial frequency of 6 CPD (p=0.038) and with glare at 3 CPD (p=0.039) and at 12 CPD (p=0.009). MTF average height analysis showed that the group A had significantly superior resolution in far targets compared to groups B and C (p=0.001). At near targets, groups A and C had better resolutions compared to group B (p=0.017). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction for far, intermediate and near VA among the groups. CONCLUSION: Eyes implanted with any of the 3 trifocal IOL designs achieved excellent uncorrected and bestcorrected distance, intermediate and near vision. FineVision and PanOptix provided significantly better intermediate vision than LISA tri at both 80 cm and 60 cm testing distance. FineVision had better near visual outcomes than PanOptix and LISA tri. Patient satisfaction was high in all 3 trifocal IOLS