June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
A Contralateral Comparison of a Trifocal vs a Multifocal +3.25 IOL: Pt Preference, Visual Performance, & Predictors of Overall Satisfaction
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Frank A Bucci
    Bucci Laser Vision, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Frank Bucci Johnson and Johnson, Code F (Financial Support)
  • Footnotes
    Support  Johnson and Johnson
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 1690 – F0008. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Frank A Bucci; A Contralateral Comparison of a Trifocal vs a Multifocal +3.25 IOL: Pt Preference, Visual Performance, & Predictors of Overall Satisfaction. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):1690 – F0008.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare pt preference, visual performance, and overall satisfaction in pts receiving a trifocal (PanOptix) in one eye and a multifocal (Tecnis +3.25) in the opposite eye. To identify by regression analysis patient variables that predict pt preferences and overall satisfaction.

Methods : 30 KPE pts (60 eyes) were prospec. randomized to receive a PANO in one eye and a TMF +3.25 in the other eye. A pt questionnaire was administered to evaluate distance,intermediate, and near vision,halos,glare,and starbursts, and overall pt satisfaction. The M&S Clinical Trial Suite was used to assess letter acuity, sine wave, and bullseye contrast sensitivity. Metrics such as uncorrected visions, residual sph and cyl, angle kappa, HOAs, and pupil size were also evaluated. Regression analysis was used to identify objective and subjective variables acting as significant predictors of overall pt satisfaction and IOL preference.

Results : Pts signif preferred (p=.028) the TMF(18) to the PANO(7), and no preference(5). “Overall Satisfaction” was sig greater (4.70/5.00) for TMF vs (4.43/5.00) PANO (p=.05). Uncorrected distance vision was sig greater (p=.032) and best corrected dist acuity trended better (p=.059) for TMF eyes. The questionnaire revealed sig better (p=.05) responses for “frequency of glasses use at distance” and trended (p=.10) for “ability to function at distance without glasses” for TMF eyes. The objective varaibale of intermed (Jaeger) vision was sig better (p=.034) in PANO eyes. However, the subjective variable “frequency glasses use at intermed” trended (p=.10) for TMF eyes. For both TMF and PANO eyes, regression revealed that variables related to reading fine print and intermediate (Jaeger) vision were sig predictors of overall patient satisfaction. But for the PANO eyes only, 2 sine wave contrast sensitivity variables – “sine wave contrast sensitivity with glare” and “sine wave contrast sensitivity without glare” were both highly sig predictors of overall satisfaction in just the PANO eyes.

Conclusions : TMF was sig preferred to PANO (18 TMF,7 Pano,5 no pref). The “overall pt satisfaction” score by pt questionnaire was sig greater (p=.05) for TMF. Regression analysis strongly suggests that issues related to contrast sensitivity both with and without glare may be responsible for the significant preference for the TMF IOL.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×