International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 2617–2622 | Cite as

Objective and subjective results following implantation of the FineVision trifocal intraocular lens in Mexican patients

  • Ivo Ferreira-Ríos
  • Karla Zuñiga-Posselt
  • Juan Carlos Serna-Ojeda
  • Eduardo Chávez-Mondragón
Case Report



To evaluate objective and subjective results after bilateral implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in a Mexican population.


Prospective, interventional case series involved 15 cataract surgery patients who underwent bilateral implantation of the trifocal Micro F lens FineVision IOL (PhysIOL, Liège, Belgium). Objective analysis involved assessment of monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), near (UNVA) at 30 and 40 cm, and intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) at 50, 60, and 70 cm, preoperatively, and at postoperative months 1, 3, and 6. Higher-order aberrations were assessed via aberrometry. Contrast sensitivity was determined via modulation transfer function. Subjective outcomes were assessed using the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25).


At postoperative month 6, mean monocular UDVA was 0.06 ± 0.11 logMAR, and UNVA was 0.03 ± 0.04 logMAR at 30 cm and 0.05 ± 0.08 logMAR at 40 cm. Mean UIVA at 50, 60, and 70 cm was 0.12 ± 0.06, 0.13 ± 0.08, and 0.04 ± 0.08 logMAR, respectively. Spherical equivalent at postoperative month 3 was 0.23 ± 0.4 diopters (D). Aberrometry revealed a mean RMS of 0.18 microm and PSF of 0.19 (Strehl ratio). VFQ-25 questionnaire results showed a mean score of 93.64 ± 4.19 points (maximum 100 points). Vision during distance and near activities was reported as “excellent.” Adverse events were reported as occurring “never to occasionally.”


Implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL in a Mexican population appears safe and effective, both objectively and subjectively. Good uncorrected visual acuity outcomes were achieved at far, near, and intermediate distances. Overall patient satisfaction was excellent.


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Zhang F, Sugar A, Jacobsen G, Collins M (2011) Visual function and spectacle independence after cataract surgery: bilateral diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses versus monovision pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vryghem JC, Heireman S (2013) Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lens. Clin Ophthalmol 7:1957–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gatinel D, Pagnoulle C, Houbrechts Y, Gobin L (2011) Design and qualification of a diffractive trifocal optical profile for intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(11):2060–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P, Lesieur G, Heireman S, Blanckaert JA et al (2012) Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of a fully diffractive trifocal lens. Clin Ophthalmol 6:1421–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sheppard AL, Shah S, Bhatt U, Bhogal G, Wolffsohn JS (2013) Visual outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(3):343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lesieur G (2012) Outcomes after implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL. J Fr Ophtalmol 35(5):338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carson D, Hill WE, Hong X, Karakelle M (2014) Optical bench performance of AcrySof(®) IQ ReSTOR(®), AT LISA(®) tri, and FineVision(®) intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 8:2105–2113PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonker SM, Bauer NJ, Makhotkina NY, Berendschot TT, van den Biggelaar FJ, Nuijts RM (2015) Comparison of a trifocal intraocular lens with a +3.0 D bifocal IOL: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(8):1631–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poyales F, Garzón N, Rozema JJ, Romero C, de Zárate BO (2016) Stability of a novel intraocular lens design: comparison of two trifocal lenses. J Refract Surg 32(6):394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cochener B (2016) Prospective clinical comparison of patient outcomes following implantation of trifocal or bifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 32(3):146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plaza-Puche AB, Alio JL (2016) Analysis of defocus curves of different modern multifocal intraocular lenses. Eur J Ophthalmol 26(5):412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivo Ferreira-Ríos
    • 1
  • Karla Zuñiga-Posselt
    • 2
  • Juan Carlos Serna-Ojeda
    • 3
  • Eduardo Chávez-Mondragón
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Oftalmologia “Conde de Valenciana”Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Department of Anterior SegmentInstituto de Oftalmologia “Conde de Valenciana”Mexico CityMexico
  3. 3.Department of Cornea and Refractive SurgeryInstituto de Oftalmologia “Conde de Valenciana”Mexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations