Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci

Figures & data

Figure 1 Gemetric and Gemetric Plus diffractive trifocal design elements (Courtesy Hoya, used with permission).

Figure 2 Comparison of the through-focus modulation transfer function by IOL (Courtesy Hoya, used with permission).

Table 1 Principal Investigator List, NINO Study

Investigator	Country	City	Site Name	Responsible EC	EC Process/Application Number
Dr. med. Alice Nietgen	Germany	Ulm	Augenzentrum Dres. Schütte and Nietgen	Landesärztekammer Baden-Württemberg	B-F-2021-039
Prof. Dr. med. Hakan Kaymak	Germany	Düsseldorf	Internationale Innovative Ophthalmochirurgie GbR	Ethikkommission der Ärztekammer Nordrhein	2021095
Prof. Dr. med. Ramin Khoramnia	Germany	Heidelberg	Universitäts- Augenklinik Heidelberg	Ethikkommission Medizinische Fakultät Heidelberg	S-226/2021
Prof. Dr. med. Manfred Tetz	Germany	Berlin	Augentagesklinik am Spreebogen	Ethikkommission bei der Ärztekammer Berlin	Eth-17/21 MZ
Prof. Dr. med. Manfred Tetz	Germany	Wittenberg	AugenarztpraxisÜberörtliche Gemeinschaftspraxis	Ethik-Kommission der Ärztekammer Sachsen-Anhalt	Eth-47/21
Dr. Laszlo Kiraly	Germany	Leipzig	Augen- und Laserzentrum Leipzig	Ethikkommission bei der Sächsischen Landesärztekammer	EK-BR-57/21-1
Dr. Matthias Maus	Germany	Köln	Sehkraft Augenzentrum Köln	Ethikkommission der Ärztekammer Nordrhein	2021095
Dr. Anne Hunold	Germany	Aachen	ÜBAG Dr. Hunold Dr. Stein MVZ Bodenhof	Ethikkommission der Ärztekammer Nordrhein	2021095
Prof. Dr. med. Kai Januschowski	Germany	Trier	MVZ Augenklinik Petrisberg Prof. Wenzel	Ethikkommission der Landesärztekammer Rheinland-Pfalz	2021–16038
Dr. Francisco Pastor Pascual	Spain	Valencia	Clínic Oftalvist Valencia	CEIm del Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda	NA
Dr. Pedro Taña Rivero	Spain	Alicante	Clínic Oftalvist Alicante	CEIm del Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda	NA

Table 2 Group Summary for Analysis

Group	Subjects	Age (Years)^a	Eyes	Toric IOLs
G/G	36	66 ± 8 (50 to 80)	72	44
G/GPlus	36	66 ± 9 (32 to 78)	72	47^b
GPlus/GPlus	52	68 ± 9 (38 to 82)	104	73
Total	124		248	164

Notes: ^aMean age ± standard deviation (range). ^b25 G, 22 GPlus.

Figure 3 The distribution of refractive outcomes at 6 months postoperative. (A) Mean refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE). (B) Postoperative refractive cylinder.

Figure 4 Summary of monocular visual acuity data by lens and test distance.

Figure 5 Binocular uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuities by distance and study group. (A) Uncorrected. (B) Distance corrected.

Notes: Horizontal offsets are for data clarity, groups were tested at the same distances.

Figure 6 Binocular distance corrected visual acuities in photopic and mesopic conditions by study group and distance.

Notes: Horizontal offsets are for data clarity, groups were tested at the same distances.

Figure 7 Distance corrected binocular defocus curve by study group.

Figure 8 Contrast sensitivity results by study group and test condition. (A) Photopic with glare, (B) Mesopic without glare, (C) MEsopic with glare.

Notes: Vertical bars represent the standard error.

Figure 9 Distribution of the Rasch-scored frequency, severity and degree of bother from visual disturbances.

Figure 10 Mean frequency, severity and degree of bother reported for glare, halos and starbursts.

Figure 11 Reported spectacle use of “Never” by study group and viewing distance.