Purchase this article with an account.
yingjie lin, Xianjun Liang, Jingchun Guo, XU CHEN, Zhituo Dong; Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal IOL and EDOF IOL. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):4288. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare the visual acuity and visual quality of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and extend depth of focus (EDOF) IOL.
This prospective, comparative clinical study enrolled 50 eyes of 50 patients who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of a trifocal IOL (Lisa tri839, Carl Zeiss) oran EDOF IOL (TECNIS Symfony; Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.). There are 24 eyes in trifocal group while 26 eyes in EDOF group. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) and uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) were evaluated one month postoperatively. The other outcomes is quality of vision including total aberration, tilt, high order aberration, coma, trefoil ,sphere and MTF in pupil of 3mm, 4mm and 5mm by using the OPD-Scan III.
Trifocal group shows a signification better intermediate and near visual outcomes(0.041logMAR± 0.088SD, 0.054logMAR± 0.171SD) than EDOF group (0.130logMAR± 0.106SD, 0.148logMAR± 0.104SD, P<0.05). There is no signification difference in UDVA between two groups. The defocus curve confirmed good visual acuity and smooth profile in trifocal group. There were no differences in aberrometry and MTF between two groups.
Trifocal IOLs had an advantage over EDOF IOLs in intermediate and near visual acuity, while both trifocal IOLs and EDOF IOLs showed excellent performance in distance visual acuity and visual quality.
This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.
Figure 1. Postoperative uncorrected distance,intermediate and near visual outcomes of trifocal IOL and EDOF IOL. Figure2. The mean defocus curve of the two IOL samples.
Table 1.Trifocal group shows a signification better intermediate and near visual outcomes than EDOF group ( P<0.05). There is no signification difference in UDVA between two groups. There were no differences in aberrometry and MTF between two groups.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only