Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens

Figures & data

Figure 1 Image of the FineVision (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium) intraocular lens.

Table 1 List of questions addressed to the patients 1 to 2 months after surgery

Would you undergo implantation with this lens type again?

How do you assess the quality of vision for watching TV, reading, and doing needlework? (excellent/good/poor/very bad)

Do you have to use distance spectacles?

Do you have to use near spectacles? When?

Do you experience halos?

Do you experience glare?

Do you see ghost images?

Do you see double images?

Do you experience discoloration?

Do you have difficulty in transitioning from dark to light or the contrary?

Table 2 Preoperative patient data

	Mean ± SD	Range
Preoperative visual acuity	LogMAR 0.16 ± 0.18	LogMAR 0.60 to LogMAR −0.18
Axial length	23.70 ± 1.08 mm	22.41 to 26.77 mm
IOL power	20.42 ± 3.45 D	11 to 27.5 D
Keratometry readings	43.21 ± 1.39 D	40.38 to 45.25 D
Corneal astigmatism	0.63 ± 0.44 D	0 to 1.75 D
Age at surgery	70.37 ± 10.34 years	49 to 93 years

Abbreviations: IOL, intraocular lens; SD, standard deviation; D, diopters; MAR, minimum angular resolution.

Table 3 Monocular visual acuity scores

LogMAR	Mean ± SD	<LogMAR 0.3	<LogMAR 0.1
Photopic
Uncorrected distance visual acuity	0.06 ± 0.09	100%	80%
Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity	0.05 ± 0.19	98%	58%
Uncorrected near visual acuity	0.11 ± 0.12	96%	42%
Distance-corrected distance visual acuity	0.00 ± 0.08	100%	94%
Distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity	0.06 ± 0.19	98%	54%
Distance-corrected near visual acuity	0.09 ± 0.12	96%	52%
Mesopic
Distance-corrected distance visual acuity	0.00 ± 0.08	100%	94%
Distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity	0.35 ± 0.27	66%	8%
Distance-corrected near visual acuity	0.32 ± 0.19	62%	12%

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; MAR, minimum angular resolution.

Table 4 Binocular visual acuity scores

LogMAR	Mean ± SD	<LogMAR 0.3	<LogMAR 0.1
Photopic
Uncorrected distance visual acuity	−0.04 ± 0.09	100%	100%
Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity	−0.10 ± 0.15	100%	92%
Uncorrected near visual acuity	0.02 ± 0.06	100%	84%
Distance-corrected distance visual acuity	−0.07 ± 0.08	100%	100%
Distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity	−0.13 ± 0.14	100%	96%
Distance-corrected near visual acuity	0.02 ± 0.05	100%	88%
Mesopic
Distance-corrected distance visual acuity	−0.06 ± 0.10	100%	100%
Distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity	0.12 ± 0.17	94.5%	38.9%
Distance-corrected near visual acuity	0.13 ± 0.12	100%	41.2%

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; MAR, minimum angular resolution.

Figure 2 Distribution of the spherical equivalent: percentage of eyes with respect to the achieved spherical equivalent.

Figure 3 Average binocular defocus curve with distance correction.

Abbreviations: MAR, minimum angular resolution; D, diopters.

Figure 4 Monocular contrast sensitivity outcomes with CVS-1000 (VectorVision, Greenville, SC, USA) in photopic and mesopic conditions.

Figure 5 Scores obtained from the questionnaire addressed to the patients 1 to 2 months after surgery.

Table 5 Mean logarithm of the contrast sensitivity in different publications for several multifocal IOLs

Study	IOL type	3 cpd	18 cpd
Present study	FineVision	1.7	0.7
Voskresenskaya et al^Citation6	MIOL record	1.8	0.9
Ferrer-Blasco et al^Citation20	Acrysof Restor +4D refractive lens exchange	2.1	1.5
Zelichowska et al^Citation30	Acrysof Restor +4D	1.5	1
Blaylock et al^Citation31	Acrysof Restor Aspheric +4D	2	1
de Vries et al^Citation8,Citation10	Acrysof Restor Aspheric +4D	1.7	0.6
de Vries et al^Citation8,Citation10	Acrysof Restor Aspheric +3D	1.7	0.6
Chang^Citation32	Acrysof Restor +4D	1.84	0.95
Mester et al^Citation21	Tecnis +4D	1.7	0.7
Mesci et al^Citation33	Tecnis +4D	1.9	0.8
Alfonso et al^Citation29	AcriLisa	1.7	0.9

Abbreviations: cpd, cycles per degree; D, diopters; IOL, intraocular lens; MIOL, multifocal IOL.

VoskresenskayaAPozdeyevaNPashtaevNBatkovYTreushnicovVCherednikVInitial results of trifocal diffractive IOL implantationGraefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol201024891299130620526609

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ferrer-BlascoTMontés-MicóRCerviñoAAlfonsoJFFernández-VegaLContrast sensitivity after refractive lens exchange with diffractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation in hyperopic eyesJ Cataract Refract Surg200834122043204819027557

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ZelichowskaBRekasMStankiewiczACerviñoAMontés-MicóRApodized diffractive versus refractive multifocal intraocular lenses: optical and visual evaluationJ Cataract Refract Surg200834122036204219027556

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BlaylockJFSiZVickersCVisual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lensJ Cataract Refract Surg20063291464147316931257

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de VriesNEWebersCATouwslagerWRDissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lensesJ Cataract Refract Surg201137585986521397457

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de VriesNEWebersCAMontés-MicóRFerrer-BlascoTNuijtsRMVisual outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of a +3.00 D or +4.00 D aspheric diffractive multifocal intraocular lens: Comparative studyJ Cataract Refract Surg20103681316132220656154

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ChangDFProspective functional and clinical comparison of bilateral ReZoom and ReSTOR intraocular lenses in patients 70 years or youngerJ Cataract Refract Surg200834693494118498998

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MesterUHunoldWWesendahlTKaymakHFunctional outcomes after implantation of Tecnis ZM900 and Array SA40 multifocal intraocular lensesJ Cataract Refract Surg20073361033104017531699

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MesciCErbilHHOlgunAAydinNCandemirBAkçakayaAADifferences in contrast sensitivity between monofocal, multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses: long-term resultsClin Experiment Ophthalmol201038876877720572819

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AlfonsoJFFernández-VegaLSeñarisAMontés-MicóRProspective study of the Acri.LISA bifocal intraocular lensJ Cataract Refract Surg200733111930193517964400

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar