Real-world evaluation of visual results and patient satisfaction for extended range of focus intraocular lenses compared to trifocal lenses

• Published in: International ophthalmology Vol. 41; no. 1; pp. 163 - 172
• Main Authors: Rementería-Capelo, Laureano A., García-Pérez, Jorge L., Gros-Otero, Juan, Carrillo, Virginia, Pérez-Lanzac, Juan, Contreras, Inés
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Acuity; Binocular vision; Cataracts; Completeness; Depth of field; Eye (anatomy); Halos; Intraocular lenses; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Ophthalmology; Original Paper; Patient satisfaction; Sensitivity; Surgery; Vision; Visual acuity; Cataract surgery; Intraocular lens; Extended-depth of focus; Trifocal
• ISSN: 0165-5701; 1573-2630
• DOI: 10.1007/s10792-020-01563-6

Purpose To report visual outcomes and patient-perceived satisfaction after trifocal or extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in a real-world scenario. Methods Three months after bilateral cataract surgery, corrected and uncorrected visual acuity for far, intermediate and near distances and binocular defocus curves and contrast sensitivity were measured. The patients also completed the Catquest SF-9 questionnaire and reported on dysphotopsia and spectacle use. Results There were 23 patients in the Symfony, 32 patients in the Finevision and 36 patients in the Panoptix group. The percentage of eyes receiving a toric IOL was 41.2%. There were no differences in uncorrected binocular visual acuities, save for near vision, which was lower in the Symfony group. Binocular defocus curves for the trifocal IOLS were almost identical, while vision achieved with the Symfony IOL was significantly lower starting at − 1.5 D defocus. Contrast sensitivity, as well as the perception of halos and glare and the difficulty for night-driving was similar for all groups, except for contrast sensitivity at 6 cycles per degree, which was lower in the Symfony group compared to both Finevision and Panoptix. For near vision, only 47.6% of the Symfony patients reported being completely spectacle-free, compared to 93.3% and 94.4% for the Finevision and Panoptix groups. Conclusions Clinically relevant differences were only detected for near vision, with lower values for EDOF IOLs. In order to achieve patient satisfaction, it is imperative to explain the results expected with each IOL; for EDOF IOLs, patients should be advised that they may require near-spectacle correction.