Results of Trifocal Intraocular Lenses Implantation in Patients with Cataract and Presbyopia
https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2018-3-248-255
Abstract
Purpose: to evaluate the clinical results of trifocal intraocular lenses implantation with different optical characteristics; optimization of preparation stages and intraocular correction of presbyopia. Patients and Methods. Phacoemulsification with binocular implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) was performed in 35 patients with cataract and presbyopia. IOL AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® was implanted in 32 eyes, AT LISAtri839MP — 38 eyes. Preoperative evaluation included standard examination with surgeon’s consultation and clarification of patients’ lifestyle and vision motivations at all distances. Postoperative evaluation included measurement of refraction, visual acuity at three distances, quality and visual acuity under mesopic conditions. Proposed to use the test questionnaire, visual acuity testing tables at intermediate distances, nomograms for IOLs power calculation developed by the authors. Results. Postoperative spherical refraction was 0.17 ± 0.23D, which did not exceed 0.5D deviation from the target refraction. Uncorrected distance visual acuity ≤ 0.5 reached in 100 % of patients on the first day after surgery. Visual acuity ≤ 0.5 at intermediate distance was achieved in 34 eyes (89.5 %) of patients with implanted IOL AT LISAtri, and the same results has been recorded for near in 33 eyes (86.8 %). On the next day after surgery in the PanOptix® group, all patients monocular gave ≤ 0.6 for intermediate and near, and 96.9 % of eyes ≤ 0.5 for far. All patients from both groups (PanOptix® or LISAtri) after 6 months binocular showed visual acuity ≤ 0.8 for far, near or intermediate distances, no patient noted a need to use any spectacle correction and did not notice significant visual impairment in mesopic conditions. Conclusion. Implantation of Trifocal IOLs AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® and AT LISAtri 839MP allows patients spectacle independence and high-quality of vision in mesopic conditions. An individual approach to each patient, concomitant ophthalmopathology, general status, life style, primary refraction and precise IOLs power calculation, allows the surgeon widely to apply this technology for presbyopia intraocular correction.
About the Authors
E. I. BelikovaRussian Federation
Belikova Elena I. MD, professor of the Ophthalmology Department; head physician
Volokolamskoe highway, 91, Moscow, 125371
Budennogo ave., 26/2, Moscow, 105118
V. A. Borzykh
Russian Federation
Borzykh Viktor A. ophthalmologist
Budennogo ave., 26/2, Moscow, 105118
References
1. Market Scope, Ophthalmic Market Perspectives. 2015, Marketscope LLC (https:// market-scope.com/). Accessed July 2016.
2. Инструкция по использованию линзы интраокулярной AcrySof модель: TNFT00 AcrySof IQ PanOptix [Instructions for the use of intraocular lens AcrySof model: TNFT00 AcrySof IQ PanOptix (In Russ.)].
3. Sanders D.R., Retzlaff J., Kraff M.C. Comparison of the SRK II formula and other second-generation formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988;14(2):136–141. DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(88)80087-7
4. Holladay J.T., Prager T.C., Chandler T.Y., Musgrove K.H., Lewis J.W., Ruiz R.S. A three-part system for refining intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988;14(1):17–24. DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(88)80059-2
5. Retzlaff J.A., Sanders D.R., Kraff M.C. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990;16(3):333–340. DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(13)80705-5
6. Weeber H.A., Meijer S.T., Piers P.A. Extending the range of vision using diffractive intraocular lens technology. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(12):2746–2754. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.034
7. Lawless M., Hodge C., Reich J., Levitz L., Bhatt U.K., McAlinden C., Roberts K., Roberts T.V. Visual and refractive outcomes following implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Eye and Vision. 2017;4:10. DOI: 10.1186/s40662-017-0076-8
8. Hoffer K.J. Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993;19(6):700–712. DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(13)80338-0
9. Marques E.F., Ferreira T.B. Comparison of visual outcomes of 2 diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refractive Surg. 2015;41(2):354–63. DOI: 10.1016/j. jcrs.2014.05.048
10. de Vries N.E., Webers C.A., Touwslager W.R., Bauer N.J., de Brabander J., Berendschot T.T., Nuijts R.M. Dissatisfaction after implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):859–865. DOI: 10.1016/j. jcrs.2010.11.032
11. Makhotkina N.Y., Nijkamp M.D., Berendschot T.T.J.M., van den Borne B., Nuijts R.M.M.A. Effect of active evaluation on the detection of negative dysphotopsia after sequential cataract surgery: discrepancy between incidences of unsolicited and solicited complaints. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(1):81–87. DOI: 10.1111/aos.13508
Review
For citations:
Belikova E.I., Borzykh V.A. Results of Trifocal Intraocular Lenses Implantation in Patients with Cataract and Presbyopia. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2018;15(3):248-255. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2018-3-248-255