Clinical Outcomes of Diffractive Aspheric Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Jung Hyun Lee; Young Joo Cho; Tae Hyung Lim; Kee Yong Choi; Beom Jin Cho

doi:10.3341/jkos.2018.59.2.145

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.59(2) > 1010851

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Cho, Lim, Choi, and Cho: Clinical Outcomes of Diffractive Aspheric Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Original Article

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2018; 59(2): 145-152.

Published online: 9 February 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2018.59.2.145

Clinical Outcomes of Diffractive Aspheric Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

Jung Hyun Lee, MD¹, Young Joo Cho, MD¹, Tae Hyung Lim, MD, PhD^1,², Kee Yong Choi, MD, PhD¹, Beom Jin Cho, MD, PhD^1,²

¹Department of Ophthalmology, HanGil Eye Hospital, Incheon, Korea.

²Department of Ophthalmology, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Gangneung, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Beom Jin Cho, MD, PhD. Department of Ophthalmology, HanGil Eye Hospital, #35 Bupyeong-daero, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon 21388, Korea. Tel: 82-32-503-3322, Fax: 82-32-504-3322, chobjn@empas.com

Received 24 August 2017 Revised 7 December 2017 Accepted 23 January 2018

The Korean Ophthalmological Society

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with diffractive aspheric trifocal intraocular lens FineVision Pod F IOL (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) implantation.

Methods

Thirty eight eyes received phacoemulsification and implantation of FineVision Pod F IOL. Uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), refractive values, and defocus curve were evaluated at postoperative 1 month and 3 months. Optical quality was evaluated with the contrast sensitivity test, OQAS® (Optical Quality Analysis System, Visiometrics, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain) and questionnaire.

Results

At the 3-month postoperative follow-up, the mean spherical equivalent was 0.01 ± 0.31 D and the mean UDVA, UIVA and UNVA were 0.04 ± 0.07, 0.19 ± 0.12, and 0.04 ± 0.07, respectively. Mean contrast sensitivities at 0.75, 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degrees were 2.00 ± 1.54, 2.16 ± 1.60, 2.25 ± 1.76, 2.16 ± 1.83, 1.52 ± 1.47 and 1.03 ± 0.95 respectively and mean objective scatter index by OQAS® (Optical Quality Analysis System, Visiometrics) was 1.54 ± 0.74. In satisfaction analysis, general satisfaction with surgery was 89% and spectacle independence were 89% at far, 78% at intermediate and 83% at near distance. Postoperative dissatisfaction factors were dryness (36%), glare at night (32%), halo (18%).

Conclusions

The FineVision Pod F IOL showed excellent distant and near visual acuities with an effective intermediate visual acuity. The eyes with FineVision Pod F IOL expected to achieve the favorable visual outcome and patient satisfaction.

Keywords: Cataract, FineVision Pod F IOL, Intermediate visual acuity, Patient satisfaction, Trifocal IOL

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

PhysIOL FineVision Pod F intraocular lens. This is a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (the manufacturer approved the use of the photograph of their product officially).

Figure 2

Mean monocular defocus curve at 1 and 3 months after surgery. Two peaks were observed at both far and near distances. There was no considerable decrease in the corrected visual acuity in the intermediate distance range. PL = plano.

Figure 3

Contrast sensitivity test for patients underwent cataract surgery using FineVision trifocal intraocular lens at 4 m distance in photopic condition at 3 months after the surgery. The results of the contrast sensitivity test in the photopic condition at 3 months after the cataract surgery were measured within the normal range.

Table 1

Patient demographics and clinical information

Values are presented as mean ± SD (range). ‘K2–K1’ means ‘corneal cylinder’.

UCDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; logMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity; D = diopter; S.E = spherical equivalent; K = keratometry; IOL = intraocular lens.

Table 2

Refractive value and visual acuity (logMAR) at preoperative, postoperative 1 month, and postoperative 3 months

Values are presented as mean ± SD (range).

logMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution; Preop = preoperation; Postop = postoperation; M = month; S.E = spherical equivalent; D = diopter; UCDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity; UCIVA = uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at 80 cm; UCNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity at 40 cm distance.

^*p-value was acquired from Wilcoxon signed rank test; ^†p-value was acquired from paired T test.

Notes

^{Conflicts of Interest} The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Postoperative questionnaires on satisfaction

Appendix 2

Survey results for postoperative satisfaction and glasses dependence

Appendix 3

Survey results for postoperative unsatisfaction

References

1. Blaylock JF, Si Z, Vickers C. Visual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1464–1473.

2. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Puchades C, Montés-Micó R. Intermediate visual function with different multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:733–739.

3. de Vries NE, Nuijts RM. Multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: literature review of benefits and side effects. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39:268–278.

4. Mester U, Hunold W, Wesendahl T, Kaymak H. Functional outcomes after implantation of Tecnis ZM900 and Array SA40 multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1033–1040.

5. Woodward MA, Randleman JB, Stulting RD. Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:992–997.

6. Lee HS, Park SH, Kim MS. Clinical results and some problems of multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lens implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1235–1241.

7. Kim SM, Kim CH, Chung ES, Chung TY. Visual outcome and patient satisfaction after implantation of multifocal IOLs: three month follow-up results. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:230–237.

8. Davison JA, Simpson MJ. History and development of the apodized diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:849–858.

9. Kretz FT, Gerl M, Gerl R, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new pupil independent diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with a +2.75 D near addition: a European multicentre study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015; 99:1655–1659.

10. Lee SC, Kim JW, Lim TH, et al. Clinical outcomes of diffractive aspheric trifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2015; 56:1338–1344.

11. Sheppard AL, Shah S, Bhatt U, et al. Visual outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39:343–349.

12. Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P, et al. Clinical outcomes with a trifocal intraocular lens: a multicenter study. J Refract Surg. 2014; 30:762–768.

13. Marques EF, Ferreira TB. Comparison of visual outcomes of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41:354–363.

14. Saad A, Saab M, Gatinel D. Repeatability of measurements with a double-pass system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:28–33.

TOOLS

Similar articles