Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparisons of visual outcomes between bilateral implantation and mix-and-match implantation of three types intraocular lenses

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare binocular static visual acuity (SVA), stereopsis, contrast sensitivity (CS) and dynamic visual acuity (DVA) of 5 combinations of bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), trifocal IOLs and extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in age-related cataract patients.

Methods

Two hundred and ninety-two eyes of 146 patients who underwent cataract surgery in the ophthalmology department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were involved. Subgroups included group MM (33patients, bilaterally bifocal IOL, ZMB00), group TT (31patients, bilaterally trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP), group XX (34patients, bilaterally EDOF IOL, ZXR00), group MX (25patients, bifocal IOL, ZMB00 + EDOF IOL, ZXR00) and group TX (23patients, trifocal IOL, AT LISA tri839MP + EDOF IOL, ZXR00). The uncorrected SVAs (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA), uncorrected DVAs (UDDVA, UIDVA and UNDVA), near and distance stereopsis, and CS were assessed 3 months postoperatively.

Results

Subgroups of TT, XX, MX and TX showed better UIVA than MM (bP = 0.039, 0.021, 0.035 and 0.037, respectively). MX showed better UNVA than MM and TX (bP = 0.031 and 0.013, respectively). MX group had the optimal outcomes of both near and distance stereopsis. In the UDDVA, XX group and MX group showed better outcomes than TX group at 24 fps (frames per second) (bP = 0.019 and 0.023, respectively). XX group and MX group showed optimal outcomes at all speeds of UIDVA (P = 0.001, 0.005, 0.003 and 0.005, respectively). As the speed increased, the XX group and the MX group showed better UNDVA than the MM group and the TT group (P = 0.019, 0.002 and 0.003, respectively).

Conclusions

Mix-and-match implantation of bifocal IOLs and EDOF IOLs provides excellent and stable binocular visual outcomes including SVA, stereopsis and DVA in distant and near distances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mojzis P, Kukuckova L, Majerova K, Liehneova K, Piñero DP (2014) Comparative analysis of the visual performance after cataract surgery with implantation of a bifocal or trifocal diffractive IOL. J Refract Surg 30(10):666–672. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20140903-06

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montés-Micó R, Madrid-Costa D, Ruiz-Alcocer J, Ferrer-Blasco T, Pons AM (2013) In vitro optical quality differences between multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(6):928–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.12.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vilar C, Hida WT, de Medeiros AL, Magalhães KRP, de Moraes Tzelikis PF, Chaves MAPD, Motta AFP, Carricondo PC, Alves MR, Nosé W (2017) Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens and blended implantation of two bifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 1(11):1393–1397. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S139909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Acar B, Nurozler Tabakci B (2021) Clinical outcome comparison: bilateral trifocal vs. mix-match extended depth of focus and trifocal intraocular lenses. Int Ophthalmol 41(11):3675–3686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01925-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Palomino-Bautista C, Sánchez-Jean R, Carmona-González D, Piñero DP, Molina-Martín A (2020) Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses. Int Ophthalmol 40(2):351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01186-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rampat R, Gatinel D (2021) Multifocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses in 2020. Ophthalmology 128(11):e164–e185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.09.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Böhm M, Petermann K, Hemkeppler E, Kohnen T (2019) Defocus curves of 4 presbyopia-correcting IOL designs: diffractive panfocal, diffractive trifocal, segmental refractive, and extended-depth-of-focus. J Cataract Refract Surg 45(11):1625–1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.07.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cochener B, Boutillier G, Lamard M, Auberger-Zagnoli C (2018) A comparative evaluation of a new generation of diffractive trifocal and extended depth of focus intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 34(8):507–514. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20180530-02

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jiang Y, Bu S, Tian F, Liang J, Wang T, Xing X, Zhang H, Zhang X (2019) Long-term clinical outcomes after mix and match implantation of two multifocal intraocular lenses with different adds. J Ophthalmol 14(2019):6789263. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6789263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramat S, Colnaghi S, Boehler A, Astore S, Falco P, Mandalà M, Nuti D, Colagiorgio P, Versino M (2012) A device for the functional evaluation of the VOR in clinical settings. Front Neurol 23(3):39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2012.00039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee JH, Chung HS, Moon SY, Park SY, Lee H, Kim JY, Tchah H (2021) Clinical outcomes after mix-and-match implantation of extended depth of focus and diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Ophthalmol 3(2021):8881794. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8881794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Song JE, Khoramnia R, Son HS, Knorz MC, Choi CY (2020) Comparison between bilateral implantation of a trifocal IOL and mix-and-match implantation of a bifocal IOL and an extended depth of focus IOL. J Refract Surg 36(8):528–535. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20200616-01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tarib I, Kasier I, Herbers C, Hagen P, Breyer D, Kaymak H, Klabe K, Lucchesi R, Teisch S, Diakonis VF et al (2019) Comparison of visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of an EDOF IOL and a mix-and-match approach. J Refract Surg 35(7):408–416. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20190417-02

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Koo OS, Kang JW, Park JK, Kim KH (2021) Visual performance and patient satisfaction after implantation of extended range-of-vision IOLs: bilateral implantation vs 2 different mix-and-match approaches. J Cataract Refract Surg 47(2):192–197. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Titiyal JS, Kaur M, Bharti N, Singhal D, Saxena R, Sharma N (2019) Optimal near and distance stereoacuity after binocular implantation of extended range of vision intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 45(6):798–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ren X, Wang Y, Wang D, Wu B, Wu L, Xu Y, Yang J, Chen Z, Li X (2020) A novel standardized test system to evaluate dynamic visual acuity post trifocal or monofocal intraocular lens implantation: a multicenter study. Eye (Lond) 34(12):2235–2241. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0780-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wu TY, Wang YX, Li XM (2021) Applications of dynamic visual acuity test in clinical ophthalmology. Int J Ophthalmol 14(11):1771–1778. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2021.11.18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Patel I, Turano KA, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Muñoz B, West SK (2006) Measures of visual function and percentage of preferred walking speed in older adults: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(1):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-0582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoffman LG, Rouse M, Ryan JB (1981) Dynamic visual acuity: a review. J Am Optom Assoc 52(11):883–887

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ao M, Li X, Huang C, Hou Z, Qiu W, Wang W (2014) Significant improvement in dynamic visual acuity after cataract surgery: a promising potential parameter for functional vision. PLoS ONE 9(12):e115812. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115812

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Férnandez-Buenaga R, Pikkel J, Maldonado M (2017) Multifocal intraocular lenses: an overview. Surv Ophthalmol 62(5):611–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.03.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Baldassare R, Bedi R (2017) Symfony extended depth of focus IOL: a review of reported data. Curr Ophthalmol Rep 5(3):225–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cristóbal JA, Remón L, Del Buey MÁ, Montés-Micó R (2010) Multifocal intraocular lenses for unilateral cataract in children. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(12):2035–2040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Garnham L, Sloper JJ (2006) Effect of age on adult stereoacuity as measured by different types of stereotest. Br J Ophthalmol 90(1):91–95. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.077719

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lightholder PA, Phillips LJ (1979) Evaluation of the binocularity of 147 unilateral and bilateral pseudophakic patients. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 56(7):451–459. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-197907000-00008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hoshina K, Tagami Y, Mimura O, Edagawa H, Matsubara M, Nakayama T (2013) A study of static, kinetic, and dynamic visual acuity in 102 Japanese professional baseball players. Clin Ophthalmol 7:627–632. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S41047

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Prof. Yang PeiZeng for his help with the preparation and design of this research. We thank the associate editor and the reviewers for their useful feedback that improved this paper.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Shurui Ke, Wenjuan Wan & Can Li

  2. Chongqing Key Lab of Ophthalmology, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Shurui Ke, Wenjuan Wan & Can Li

  3. Chongqing Eye Institute, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Shurui Ke, Wenjuan Wan & Can Li

Authors
  1. Shurui Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenjuan Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Can Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by SK, WW and CL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SK and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Can Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from the parents.

Consent to publication

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Chongqing Medical University (2015–2017).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ke, S., Wan, W. & Li, C. Comparisons of visual outcomes between bilateral implantation and mix-and-match implantation of three types intraocular lenses. Int Ophthalmol 43, 1143–1152 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02513-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02513-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation