Refractive Lens Exchange in Hyperopic Presbyopes with the Acrysof IQ Panoptix Intraocular Lens: One-Year Results and Analysis of the Literature

Figures & data

Table 1 Preoperative Characteristics

	Mean±SD	Min	Max
Sphere (D)	3.62± 2.081	+1	+9
Cylinder(D)	−0.26±0.304	−0.75	+0.75
SE(D)	3.62± 2.081	+1	+9
Kmin (mm)	7.82±0.242	7.39	8.33
Kmax(mm)	7.87±0.226	7.3	8.50
DeltaK	−0.48±0.430	−0.5	+1.5
Axial length (mm)	22.38±1.052	20.13	24.9
ACD (mm)	2.81±0.306	2.02	3.43
Dioptric IOL power(D)	25.7±3.692	19	34
Preoperative VA(logMar)	0.6±0.325	0.1	1

Table 2 Postoperative Monocular Visual Outcome

VA	Preoperative	4 Weeks Postoperative	6 Months Postoperative	1 Year Postoperative	p value Preoperative vs 4 Weeks Postoperative	p value Preoperative vs 6 Months Postoperative	p value Preoperative vs 1 Year Postoperative	p value 6 Months vs 1 Year Postoperative
UDVA	0.595±0.323	0.073±0.139	0.071±0.135	0.070±0.139	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
UIVA	0.603±0.323	0.078±0.141	0.075±0.138	0.075±0.141	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
UNVA	0.600±0.325	0.076±0.141	0.074±0.136	0.074±0.140	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
CDVA	0.144±0.259	0.031±0.067	0.031±0.066	0.029±0.068	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
CIVA	0.150±0.260	0.036±0.074	0.035±0.072	0.034±0.071	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
CNVA	0.146±0.256	0.033±0.065	0.032±0.068	0.031±0.068	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999

Abbreviations: VA, visual acuity; UDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA, best-corrected distance visual acuity; UIVA, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; CIVA, best-corrected intermediate visual acuity; UNVA, uncorrected near visual acuity; CNVA, best-corrected near visual acuity.

Table 3 Postoperative Binocular Visual Outcome

VA	Preoperative	4 Weeks Postoperative	6 Months Postoperative	1 Year Postoperative	p value Preoperative vs 4 Weeks Postoperative	p value Preoperative vs 6 Months Postoperative	p value Preoperative vs 1 Year Postoperative	p value 6 Months vs 1 Year Postoperative
UDVA	0.462±0.337	−0.005±0.150	−0.007±0.130	−0.007±0.136	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
UIVA	0.469±0.336	−0.001±0.155	−0.002±0.134	−0.002±0.141	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
UNVA	0.467±0.337	−0.002±0.152	−0.003±0.130	−0.003±0.138	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
CDVA	0.016±0.260	−0.051±0.082	−0.041±0.077	−0.042±0.077	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
CIVA	0.020±0.262	−0.049±0.084	−0.039±0.080	−0.039±0.083	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999
CNVA	0.018±0.258	−0.048±0.082	−0.040±0.077	−0.041±0.0080	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	>0.9999

Abbreviations: VA, visual acuity; UDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA, best-corrected distance visual acuity; UIVA, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; CIVA, best-corrected intermediate visual acuity; UNVA, uncorrected near visual acuity; CNVA, best-corrected near visual acuity.

Figure 1 Distribution of monocular postoperative UDVA, UIVA, UNVA.

Abbreviations: UDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; UIVA, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; UNVA, uncorrected near visual acuity.

Figure 2 Distribution of binocular postoperative UDVA, UIVA, UNVA.

Abbreviations: UDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; UIVA, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; UNVA, uncorrected near visual acuity.

Figure 3 Binocular defocus curve.

Figure 4 Contrast sensitivity.

Abbreviation: CS, contrast sensitivity.

Table 4 Studies Reporting Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Trifocal Panoptix Implantation

Study	Follow-Up Period	Surgery	IOL	No Patients/Eyes	UDVA (logMar)	CDVA (logMar)	UIVA (logMar)	CIVA (logMar)	UNVA (logMar)	CNVA (logMar)
Vilar et al (2017)^Citation19	1 mo	Cat	Panoptix Blended by focal	20/40	0.01±0.04 0.08±0.05	0.01±0.06* 0.04–0.06	0.14±0.05* 0.22±0.06	-	−0.03±0.04* 0.07±0.03	-
Lawless et al (2017)^Citation20	4–9 weeks	Cat/RLE	Panoptix	33/66	0.01±0.01	-	0.30±0.14	-	0.11±0.04	-
Garcia-Perez (2017)^Citation21	1 mo	Cat	Panoptix	58/116	0.03±0.046	-	0.12±0.143	-	At 33 cm 0.02±0.099	-
Gundersen & Potvin (2017)^Citation22	6–24 mo	Cat	Panoptix Fine Vision	60/120	−0.05±0.05 –0.04±0.05	-	-	-	0.07±0.07* 0.11±0.08	-
Monaco et al (2017)^Citation23	4 mo	Cat	Panoptix Symfony Acrysof 60WF	60/120	0.00±0.04 0.03±0.05 0.02±0.06	−0.01±0.01 –0.01±0.02 –0.01±0.02	0.23±0.07* 0.27±0.08 0.42±0.09	0.13±0.07* 0.16±0.07* 0.29±0.11	0.02±0.06* 0.07±0.08 0.38±0.10	0.01±0.04* 0.07±0.07* 0.32±0.09
Kohnen (2017)^Citation8	3 mo	Cat	Panoptix	27/54	0.00±0.094	−0.07±0.076	At 60 cm 0.00±0.11 At 80 cm 0.09±0.107	At 60 cm 0.01±0.124At 80 cm 0.10±0.126	0.01±0.087	0.03±0.113
de Medeiros et al (2017)^Citation24	180days	Cat	Panoptix Mixed EDOF	20/40	0.01±0.04 –0.01±0.15*	0.07±0.06* -0.16±0.11	0.14±0.05* 0.20±0.05	-	−0.03±0.04* 0.11±0.07	-
Cochener et al (2018)^Citation25	6 mo	Cat	Panoptix Fine Vision Symfony	60/120	0.976±0.139 0.961±0.100 0.979±0.06	-	-	-	0.66±0.00* 0.64±0.07* 0.57±0.15
Ruis Meza et al (2018)^Citation26	9–24 mo	Cat/RLE	Panoptix Symfony	34/68	0.0±0.03 0.05±0.12	−0.03±0.03 –0.02±0.03	-	At 60 cm: 0.06±0.10 0.05±0.04	-	0.04±0.06* 0.20±0.06
Alio et al (2018)^Citation13	6 mo	Cat	Panoptix	26/52	0.07±0.10	0.01±0.04	0.12±0.13	0.12±0.12	0.16±0.09	0.08±0.06
Mencuci et al (2018)^Citation27	3 mo	Cat	Panoptix AT Lisa Tri Symfony	60/120	−0.02±0.08 0.00±0.02 –0.04±0.05	−0.03±0.08 –0.01±0.02 –0.05±0.05	At 60cm 0.07±0.04*(P) At 80 cm 0.16±0.06 0.11±0.07 0.07±0.07	At 60cm 0.06±0.05*(P) At 80 cm 0.14±0.08 0.10±0.06* 0.06±0.07*	0.15±0.05* 0.18±0.05* 0.25±-0.08	0.12±0.04* 0.13±0.04* 0.20±0.1
Escandon Garcia et al (2018)^Citation28	39–50days	Cat	Panoptix Symfony Fine Vision	45/90	0.07±0.10 0.08±0.10 0.08±0.09	−0.07±0.19 –0.10±0.19 –0.24±0.14	–	–	–	–

Note: *Kruskal–Wallis test.

Abbreviations: UDVA, uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA, best-corrected distance visual acuity; UIVA, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; CIVA, best-corrected intermediate visual acuity; UNVA, uncorrected near visual acuity; CNVA, best-corrected near visual acuity.

Vilar C, Hida WT, de Medeiros AL, et al. Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of two bifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1393–1397. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S139909

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lawless M, Hodge C, Reich J, et al. Visual and refractive outcomes following implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Eye Vis (Lond). 2017;4:10. doi:10.1186/s40662-017-0076-8

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Garcia-Perez JL, Gros-Otero J, Sanchez-Ramos C, et al. Short-term visual outcomes of a new trifocal intraocular lens. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:72. doi:10.1186/s12886-017-0462-y

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gundersen KG, Potvin R. Trifocal intraocular lenses: a comparison of the visual performance and quality of vision provided by two different lens designs. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1081–1087. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S136164

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F, et al. Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43:737–747. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.03.037

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kohnen T. First implantation of a diffractive quadrifocal (trifocal) intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:2330–2332. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.012

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Medeiros AL, de Araujo Rolim AG, Motta AFP, et al. Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens with a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1911–1916. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S145945

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, et al. A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2018;34:507–514. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengozar-Vela A, Ruiz-Santos M. A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018;28:182–187. doi:10.5301/ejo.5001029

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Alio Del Barrio JL, et al. Clinical outcomes with a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018;28:419–424. doi:10.1177/1120672118762231

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O, et al. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256:1913–1922. doi:10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Escandón-García S, Ribeiro FJ, McAlinden C, et al. Through-focus vision performance and light disturbances of 3 new intraocular lenses for presbyopia correction. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:6165493.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar