Abstract
Purpose:
To compare visual outcomes, reading ability, and visual quality between the Symfony extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (IOL) and the trifocal AT LISA tri 839MP IOL.
Setting:
University Eye Clinic Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Design:
Prospective randomized controlled trial.
Methods:
Patients were randomly assigned to bilateral Symfony IOL or AT LISA tri 839MP IOL implantation. The primary outcome measure was uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA measured at 66 cm). Secondary outcomes included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), reading ability, and comparison of defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, optical adverse effects, and quality of vision.
Results:
The study enrolled 60 eyes of 30 patients. The mean UIVA was −0.02 ± 0.03 (SD) vs 0.01 ± 0.03 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) in the Symfony and AT LISA tri 839MP groups, respectively (P = .047). The UDVA was 0.01 ± 0.12 and −0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR (P = .11) and the UNVA was 0.09 ± 0.05 and 0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR (P = .052) in the Symfony and AT LISA tri 839MP groups, respectively. Reading ability was similar in both groups at 40 cm and 66 cm (P = .87 and P = .14, respectively). Less than 10% of patients in both groups experienced disabling glare. Patients experienced disabling halos in the AT LISA tri 839 MP group compared to the Symfony group in 39% and 21% of cases, respectively (P = .12). The mean score for visual functioning was 88.0 ± 14.1 n the trifocal group and 88.2 ± 10.9 for the EDOF group (P = .96).
Conclusions:
The UIVA was better in the Symfony group than in the AT LISA tri 839MP group. No significant differences were seen in the binocular UNVA and UDVA, contrast sensitivity, reading ability, incidence of photopic phenomena, and patient satisfaction.
Binocular UIVA was better after Symfony EDOF IOL implantation compared with AT LISA tri 839MP. Furthermore, fewer patients experienced disabling halos after Symfony EDOF implantation.
To compare visual outcomes, reading ability, and visual quality between the Symfony extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens (IOL) and the trifocal AT LISA tri 839MP IOL.
Setting:
University Eye Clinic Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Design:
Prospective randomized controlled trial.
Methods:
Patients were randomly assigned to bilateral Symfony IOL or AT LISA tri 839MP IOL implantation. The primary outcome measure was uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA measured at 66 cm). Secondary outcomes included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), reading ability, and comparison of defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, optical adverse effects, and quality of vision.
Results:
The study enrolled 60 eyes of 30 patients. The mean UIVA was −0.02 ± 0.03 (SD) vs 0.01 ± 0.03 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) in the Symfony and AT LISA tri 839MP groups, respectively (P = .047). The UDVA was 0.01 ± 0.12 and −0.05 ± 0.07 logMAR (P = .11) and the UNVA was 0.09 ± 0.05 and 0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR (P = .052) in the Symfony and AT LISA tri 839MP groups, respectively. Reading ability was similar in both groups at 40 cm and 66 cm (P = .87 and P = .14, respectively). Less than 10% of patients in both groups experienced disabling glare. Patients experienced disabling halos in the AT LISA tri 839 MP group compared to the Symfony group in 39% and 21% of cases, respectively (P = .12). The mean score for visual functioning was 88.0 ± 14.1 n the trifocal group and 88.2 ± 10.9 for the EDOF group (P = .96).
Conclusions:
The UIVA was better in the Symfony group than in the AT LISA tri 839MP group. No significant differences were seen in the binocular UNVA and UDVA, contrast sensitivity, reading ability, incidence of photopic phenomena, and patient satisfaction.
Binocular UIVA was better after Symfony EDOF IOL implantation compared with AT LISA tri 839MP. Furthermore, fewer patients experienced disabling halos after Symfony EDOF implantation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 193-203 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2020 |
Funding
Supported by a grant from Abbott Laboratories, Santa Ana, USA. Disclosures: Dr. Nuijts is a consultant at Alcon Laboratories, Inc., ASICO LLC, and Thea Pharma, and receives financial support for research from Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Oculentis GmbH, and Ophtec BV. Dr. Bauer isa consultant for Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Bausch & Lomb, Inc.; receives financial support for research from Alcon Laboratories, Inc.; and receives lecture fees from Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Bausch & Lomb, Inc. None of the other authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Alcon Laboratories, Inc. | |
| Bausch & Lomb, Inc. | |
| Santa Ana | |
| Abbott Laboratories |