Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials

Francisco Poyales,1 Ricardo Pérez,1 Israel López-Brea,1 Ying Zhou,1 Laura Rico,1 Nuria Garzón1,2 1Miranza IOA, Madrid, Spain; 2Optometry and Vision Department, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, SpainCorrespondence: Nuria GarzónMiranza IOA, C/Galileo 104, Ma...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Poyales F, Pérez R, López-Brea I, Zhou Y, Rico L, Garzón N
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2020
Materias:	trifocal finevision intraocular lens biomaterial hydrophobic hydrophilic glistening-free Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/79fe7d2bc1714d8d8d21f1d66642e19f
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:79fe7d2bc1714d8d8d21f1d66642e19f
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:79fe7d2bc1714d8d8d21f1d66642e19f2021-12-02T11:20:50ZComparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials1177-5483https://doaj.org/article/79fe7d2bc1714d8d8d21f1d66642e19f2020-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-visual-performance-and-patient-satisfaction-outcomes-wit-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHhttps://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Francisco Poyales,1 Ricardo Pérez,1 Israel López-Brea,1 Ying Zhou,1 Laura Rico,1 Nuria Garzón1,2 1Miranza IOA, Madrid, Spain; 2Optometry and Vision Department, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, SpainCorrespondence: Nuria GarzónMiranza IOA, C/Galileo 104, Madrid 28003, SpainTel +34 915353570Email nuria.garzon@miranza.esPurpose: To compare clinical outcomes in a prospective trial of cataract surgery patients bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with very similar optical designs but consisting of different IOL materials (hydrophobic and hydrophilic).Patients and Methods: Fifty-one patients (102 eyes) were randomized to receive trifocal IOLs bilaterally – FineVision POD F (hydrophilic) or FineVision POD F GF (hydrophobic) (both PhysIOL, Liége, Belgium). The follow-up period was 3 months. Outcome measurements included uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA), and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), refraction, negative dysphotopsia, optical quality of vision, contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, halometry (discrimination index), and patient-reported outcomes.Results: At the final study visit, mean (SD) values for binocular UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA (80 cm), and DCNVA (40 cm) were − 0.01 (0.06), − 0.04 (0.04), 0.09 (0.10), and 0.10 (0.09) logMAR, respectively, for POD F, and 0.01 (0.08), − 0.03 (0.03), 0.08 (0.1), and 0.13 (0.11) respectively, for POD F GF. Defocus assessments showed a continuous curve with a functional range of visual acuity (≤ 0.15 logMAR) from &sim; 30 cm to infinity in both groups. The discrimination index was > 0.85 for all patients, and both groups showed similar contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. At 3 months, no patient reported negative dysphotopsia, and high satisfaction rates were observed.Conclusion: Clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between each lens when measured at 1 month and 3 months after implantation. This equally good clinical performance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal lenses allows the surgeon to choose the IOL material based on personal preferences or patients’ needs.Keywords: trifocal FineVision, intraocular lens, biomaterial, hydrophobic, hydrophilic, glistening-freePoyales FPérez RLópez-Brea IZhou YRico LGarzón NDove Medical Pressarticletrifocal finevisionintraocular lensbiomaterialhydrophobichydrophilicglistening-freeOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol Volume 14, Pp 3237-3247 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	trifocal finevision intraocular lens biomaterial hydrophobic hydrophilic glistening-free Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	trifocal finevision intraocular lens biomaterial hydrophobic hydrophilic glistening-free Ophthalmology RE1-994 Poyales F Pérez R López-Brea I Zhou Y Rico L Garzón N Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials
description	Francisco Poyales,1 Ricardo Pérez,1 Israel López-Brea,1 Ying Zhou,1 Laura Rico,1 Nuria Garzón1,2 1Miranza IOA, Madrid, Spain; 2Optometry and Vision Department, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, SpainCorrespondence: Nuria GarzónMiranza IOA, C/Galileo 104, Madrid 28003, SpainTel +34 915353570Email nuria.garzon@miranza.esPurpose: To compare clinical outcomes in a prospective trial of cataract surgery patients bilaterally implanted with two different trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with very similar optical designs but consisting of different IOL materials (hydrophobic and hydrophilic).Patients and Methods: Fifty-one patients (102 eyes) were randomized to receive trifocal IOLs bilaterally – FineVision POD F (hydrophilic) or FineVision POD F GF (hydrophobic) (both PhysIOL, Liége, Belgium). The follow-up period was 3 months. Outcome measurements included uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA), and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), refraction, negative dysphotopsia, optical quality of vision, contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, halometry (discrimination index), and patient-reported outcomes.Results: At the final study visit, mean (SD) values for binocular UDVA, CDVA, DCIVA (80 cm), and DCNVA (40 cm) were − 0.01 (0.06), − 0.04 (0.04), 0.09 (0.10), and 0.10 (0.09) logMAR, respectively, for POD F, and 0.01 (0.08), − 0.03 (0.03), 0.08 (0.1), and 0.13 (0.11) respectively, for POD F GF. Defocus assessments showed a continuous curve with a functional range of visual acuity (≤ 0.15 logMAR) from &sim; 30 cm to infinity in both groups. The discrimination index was > 0.85 for all patients, and both groups showed similar contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. At 3 months, no patient reported negative dysphotopsia, and high satisfaction rates were observed.Conclusion: Clinical outcomes showed no significant difference between each lens when measured at 1 month and 3 months after implantation. This equally good clinical performance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic trifocal lenses allows the surgeon to choose the IOL material based on personal preferences or patients’ needs.Keywords: trifocal FineVision, intraocular lens, biomaterial, hydrophobic, hydrophilic, glistening-free
format	article
author	Poyales F Pérez R López-Brea I Zhou Y Rico L Garzón N
author_facet	Poyales F Pérez R López-Brea I Zhou Y Rico L Garzón N
author_sort	Poyales F
title	Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials
title_short	Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials
title_full	Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials
title_fullStr	Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials
title_sort	comparison of visual performance and patient satisfaction outcomes with two trifocal iols with similar optical design but different materials
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/79fe7d2bc1714d8d8d21f1d66642e19f
work_keys_str_mv	AT poyalesf comparisonofvisualperformanceandpatientsatisfactionoutcomeswithtwotrifocaliolswithsimilaropticaldesignbutdifferentmaterials AT perezr comparisonofvisualperformanceandpatientsatisfactionoutcomeswithtwotrifocaliolswithsimilaropticaldesignbutdifferentmaterials AT lopezbreai comparisonofvisualperformanceandpatientsatisfactionoutcomeswithtwotrifocaliolswithsimilaropticaldesignbutdifferentmaterials AT zhouy comparisonofvisualperformanceandpatientsatisfactionoutcomeswithtwotrifocaliolswithsimilaropticaldesignbutdifferentmaterials AT ricol comparisonofvisualperformanceandpatientsatisfactionoutcomeswithtwotrifocaliolswithsimilaropticaldesignbutdifferentmaterials AT garzonn comparisonofvisualperformanceandpatientsatisfactionoutcomeswithtwotrifocaliolswithsimilaropticaldesignbutdifferentmaterials
_version_	1718395994204274688

Comparison of Visual Performance and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes with Two Trifocal IOLs with Similar Optical Design but Different Materials

Ejemplares similares