Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) and Trifocal Lenses: Advantages and Disadvantages. What Determines the Choice of Optical Correction? Review
https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2024-4-674-680
Abstract
The purpose: to compare the results of studies on intraocular lenses (IOLs) with extended depth of focus (EDOF) and trifocal intraocular lenses (THIOLs).
Methods. The comparative analysis was conducted based on data from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized clinical trials. The electronic databases used were PubMed and Elibrary. The most commonly analyzed characteristics were postoperative refraction, visual acuity, optical aberrations, contrast sensitivity, visual quality, and dependence on glasses.
Results. THIOL has significant advantages over EDOF in terms of postoperative refraction and visual acuity. This is demonstrated by a significantly lower postoperative residual spherical correction and spherical equivalent. There was no significant difference in postoperative astigmatism between the two groups. The analysis of visual acuity and eyeglass independence shows the advantages of EDOF for medium distances and THIOL for close distances. Some researchers prefer a combination of these two IOL types to achieve maximum results. Published data on optical phenomena indicate a higher number of dysphotopsias in the THIOL group. However, research results are highly contradictory due to their heterogeneity. A significant decrease in contrast sensitivity was observed in all groups for both photopic and mesopic conditions. Nevertheless, EDOF showed an advantage at lower spatial frequencies. In terms of satisfaction with the results obtained after surgery, there were no significant differences between the two groups of intraocular lenses (IOLs), as all patients reported a high level of satisfaction.
Conclusion. Binocular implantation of a THIOL can provide greater independence from glasses and good vision at medium and short distances. However, patients should be aware of a possible decrease in contrast sensitivity and visual quality, especially at night, which may be accompanied by discomfort while driving. If more activity is required at intermediate distances in daily life, the choice of an EDOF IOL is crucial, and the patient may not require additional eyeglasses for closerange work if necessary. In clinical practice, knowing the characteristics of an IOL helps meet patient expectations and achieve high levels of satisfaction.
About the Authors
A. Zh. FursovaRussian Federation
Fursova Anzhella Zh., MD, Professor, Head of the Ophthalmology Department; Head of the Department of Ophthalmology
Nemirovich‑Danchenko str., 130, Novosibirsk, 630087,
Krasny ave., 52, Novosibirsk, 630091
A. A. Atamanenko
Russian Federation
Atamanenko Andrey A., ophthalmologist
10 let Oktyabrya str., 100, Omsk, 644001
References
1. Karam M, Alkhowaiter N, Alkhabbaz A, Aldubaikhi A, Alsaif A, Shareef E, Alazaz R, Alotaibi A, Koaik M, Jabbour S. Extended Depth of Focus Versus Trifocal for Intraocular Lens Implantation: An Updated Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023 Jul;251:52–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.01.024.
2. Zhong Y, Wang K, Yu X, Liu X, Yao K. Comparison of trifocal or hybrid multifocal extended depth of focus intraocular lenses: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 23;11(1):6699. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86222-1.
3. Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, AubergerZagnoli C. A Comparative Evaluation of a New Generation of Diffractive Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses. J Refract Surg. 2018 Aug 1;34(8):507–514. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02.
4. Shen Z, Lin Y, Zhu Y, Liu X, Yan J, Yao K. Clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 28;7:45337. doi: 10.1038/srep45337.
5. Hamid A, Sokwala A. A more natural way of seeing: visual performance of three presbyopia correcting intraocular lenses. Open J. Ophthal. 2016;06:176–183. doi: 10.4236/ojoph.2016.63025.
6. Singh B, Sharma S, Dadia S, Bharti N, Bharti S. Comparative Evaluation of Visual Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of a Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lens and an Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens. Eye Contact Lens. 2020 Sep;46(5):314–318. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000637.
7. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AYu, Antonov EA, Konovalova MM. Outcomes of bilateral implantation of trifocal and extended depth of focus IOLs. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2022;138(5):30–38. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/oftalma202213805130.
8. Breyer DRH, Kaymak H, Ax T, Kretz FTA, Auffarth GU, Hagen PR. Multifocal Intraocular Lenses and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017 JulAug;6(4):339–349. doi: 10.22608/APO.2017186.
9. Tran DB, Owyang A, Hwang J, Potvin R. Visual acuity, quality of vision, and patient reported outcomes after bilateral implantationwith a trifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:403–412. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S295503.
10. Schallhorn SC, Teenan D, Venter JA, Hannan SJ, Schallhorn JM. Initial Clinical Outcomes of a New Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens. J Refract Surg. 2019 Jul 1;35(7):426–433. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20190530-01.
11. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O, Savastano A, Rizzo S. 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 Oct;256(10):1913–1922. doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-4052-3.
12. Sezgin Asena B. Visual and refractive outcomes, spectacle independence, and visual disturbances after cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery: Comparison of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019 Nov;45(11):1539–1546. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.06.005.
13. de Medeiros AL, de Araujo Rolim AG, Motta AFP, Ventura BV, Vilar C, Chaves MAPD, Carricondo PC, Hida WT. 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.
14. Farvardin M, Johari M, AttarzadeA, Rahat F, Farvardin R, Farvardin Z. Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens (Alcon Acrysof IQ(R) PanOptix) and extended depth of focus lens (Tecnis(R) Symfony(R) ZXR00 lens). Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(2):567–573. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01608-w.
15. RuizMesa R, AbengozarVela A, Aramburu A, RuizSantos M. Comparison of visual outcomes after bilateral implantation of extended range of vision and trifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017;27(4):460–465. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000935.
16. Hovanesian JA, Jones M, Allen Q. The Vivity Extended Range of Vision IOL vs the PanOptix Trifocal, ReStor 2.5 Active Focus and ReStor 3.0 Multifocal Lenses: A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction, Visual Disturbances, and Spectacle Independence. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022 Jan 18;16:145–152. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S347382.
17. Monaco G, Gari M, Di Censo F, Poscia A, Ruggi G, Scialdone A. Visual performance after bilateral implantation of 2 new presbyopiacorrecting intraocularlenses: Trifocal versus extended range of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Jun;43(6):737– 747. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.03.037.
18. Li J, Sun B, Zhang Y, Hao Y, Wang Z, Liu C, Jiang S. Comparative efficacy and safety of all kinds of intraocular lenses in presbyopiacorrecting cataract surgery: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2024 Apr 16;24(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12886-024-03446-1.
19. McCabe C, Berdahl J, Reiser H, Newsom TH, Cibik L, Koch D, LempHull J, Jasti S. Clinical outcomes in a U.S. registration study of a new EDOF intraocular lens with a nondiffractive design. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Nov 1;48(11):1297–1304. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000978.
20. Pilger D, Homburg D, Brockmann T, Torun N, Bertelmann E, von Sonnleithner C. Clinical outcome and higher order aberrations after bilateral implantation of an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jul;28(4):425–432. doi: 10.1177/1120672118766809.
21. Pedrotti E, Bruni E, Bonacci E, Badalamenti R, Mastropasqua R, Marchini G. Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes With a Monofocal and an Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lens. J Refract Surg. 2016 Jul 1;32(7):436–442. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20160428-06.
22. EscandónGarcía S, Ribeiro FJ, McAlinden C, Queirós A, GonzálezMéijome JM. ThroughFocus Vision Performance and Light Disturbances of 3 New Intraocular Lenses for Presbyopia Correction. J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jan 31;2018:6165493. doi: 10.1155/2018/6165493.
23. RuizMesa R, AbengózarVela A, RuizSantos M. A comparative study of the visual outcomes between a new trifocal and an extended depth of focus intraocular lens. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018 Mar;28(2):182–187. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5001029.
24. Webers VSC, Bauer NJC, Saelens IEY, Creten OJM, Berendschot TTJM, van den Biggelaar FJHM, Nuijts RMMA. Comparison of the intermediate distance of a trifocal IOL with an extended depthoffocus IOL: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020 Feb;46(2):193–203. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000012. PMID: 32126031.
25. Karuppiah P, Varman NVA, Varman A, Balakumar D. Comparison of clinical outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (AT LISA, Eyecryl SERT trifocal) versus extended depth of focus intraocular lens (Eyhance, Eyecryl SERT EDOF). Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 Aug;70(8):2867–2871. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2921_21. Erratum in: Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 Dec;70(12):4472. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.362035.
26. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, Legro MW, DienerWest M, Bass EB, Damiano AM, et al. The VF14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994 May;112(5):630–638. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1994.01090170074026.
27. McAlinden C, Pesudovs K, Moore JE. The development of an instrument to measure quality of vision: the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Nov;51(11):5537–5545. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-5341.
28. Alonso J, Espallargues M, Andersen TF, Cassard SD, Dunn E, BernthPetersen P, Norregaard JC, Black C, Steinberg EP, Anderson GF. International applicability of the VF14. An index of visual function in patients with cataracts. Ophthalmology. 1997 May;104(5):799–807. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(97)30230-9.
29. Torky MA, Nokrashy AE, Metwally H, Abdelhameed AG. Visual performance following implantation of presbyopia correcting intraocular lenses. Eye (Lond). 2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.1038/s41433-022-02188-y. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35941184. .
30. Tavassoli S, Ziaei H, Yadegarfar ME, Gokul A, Kernohan A, Evans JR, Ziaei M. Trifocal versus extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jul 10;7(7):CD014891. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014891.pub2.
Review
For citations:
Fursova A.Zh., Atamanenko A.A. Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) and Trifocal Lenses: Advantages and Disadvantages. What Determines the Choice of Optical Correction? Review. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2024;21(4):674-680. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2024-4-674-680