Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Initial results of trifocal diffractive IOL implantation

  • Cataract
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Bifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) are designed to reduce dependence on eyeglasses after surgery, but they cannot provide full range of vision, and have a drop of visual acuity in the intermediate distance. This problem may be solved with a trifocal lens, which produces three useful focal points. This study was conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes, functional vision and spectacle independence in patients with trifocal diffractive IOLs.

Methods

Thirty-six eyes after implantation of diffractive intraocular lens MIOL-Record were evaluated. This IOL has a diffractive lens profile binary in phase and produces three useful foci. Outcome measures recorded 6 months postoperatively were uncorrected and distance-corrected (far, near, intermediate) visual acuities, contrast sensitivity (under photopic and mesopic condition), root-mean-square (RMS) of higher order aberrations (HOA), patients’ quality of life (visual function questionnaire VFQ-25, halos and glare presence, overall satisfaction), and spectacle independence.

Results

Postoperatively, monocularly, the uncorrected (UDVA) and the corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were 0.74 ± 0.21 and 0.86 ± 0.23 respectively (P < 0.05). No differences were found between uncorrected (UNVA)—0.85 ± 0.13 and best distance-corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) 0.89 ± 0.12 (P > 0.05). The uncorrected (UIVA) and best distance-corrected acuities of intermediate vision (CIVA) at 50 cm were 0.58 ± 0.16 and 0.6 ± 0.2 respectively. The photopic contrast sensitivity was within the standard normal range. But under dim light conditions it was inferior at all spatial frequencies by more than 0.2 logarithmic units. The mean aberration values were: total HOA RMS—0.816 ± 0.362 μm, spherical aberration (SA)—0.207 ± 0.136 μm, coma—0.335 ± 0.206 μm. The percentage of patients achieving spectacle freedom was 94%. On the questionnaire, 25% of patient noted nighttime halos; glare difficulty was reported by 16.7% of patients, difficulties with night vision persisted in 22.3% of cases.

Conclusion

Diffractive trifocal intraocular lens MIOL-Record provided good uncorrected distance, intermediate and near vision, gave high rates of spectacle freedom and overall patient satisfaction.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Begoña Baamonde M, Montés-Micó R (2007) Prospective visual evaluation of apodized diffractive intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1235–1243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bucci AF (2006) Asymmetric implantation of multifocal IOLs may improve visual comfort in patients with cataracts and presbyopia. EuroTimes 11(9):16

    Google Scholar 

  3. Petermeier K, Szurman P (2007) Subjective and objective outcome following implantation of the apodized diffractive AcrySof ReSTOR. Ophthalmology 104(399–404):406–408

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goes FJ (2008) Visual results following implantation of a refractive and a diffractive multifocal IOL in the contralateral eye. J Refract Surg 24:300–305

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Swanson GJ (1994) Diffractive trifocal intraocular lens design. Patent (US) №. 5344447

  6. Valle PJ, Oti JE, Canales VF, Cagigal MP (2005) Visual axial PSF of diffractive trifocal lenses. Optics Express 13:2782–2792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fedorov SN, Linnik LF, Treushnicov VM, Viktorova EA (1998) Polymer material for making an elastic intraocular lens and a lens based on said material. Patent (US) № 5725576

  8. Fedorov SN, Linnik LF, Treushnicov VM, Viktorova EA (1998) Method for making an elastic intraocular lens. Patent (US) № 5833890

  9. Chylack LT Jr, Wolf JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Billimore MA, Bailey IL Jr, Friend J, McCarthy D, Wu SY (1993) The lens opacities classification system III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 111:831–836

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ligabue EA, Giordano C (2007) Interpretation of aberrometry measurements in cataract surgery. J Refract Surg 23:S996–S1004

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. http://www.augenklinik.uni-wuerzburg.de/ulib/c2.htm

  12. http://www.doctor-hill.com/iol-main/formulas.htm

  13. Goes FJ (2008) Multifocal IOLs. In: Devgan U (ed) Premium Presbiopia—Correcting IOLs. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, New Delhi, pp 115–125

    Google Scholar 

  14. Futhey JA (1990) Diffractive lens. Patent (US) № 4936666

  15. Koronkevich VP, Lenkova GA, Iskakov IA, Fedorov SN (2002) Diffractive intraocular lens. Patent (RU) № 2000104268

  16. Alio LA, Elkady B, Ortiz D, Bernabeu G (2008) Clinical outcomes and intraocular optical quality of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with asymmetrical light distribution. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:942–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gierek-Ciaciura S, Cwalina L, Bednarski L, Mrukwa-Kominek E (2009) A comparative clinical study of the visual results between three types of multifocal lenses. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1177-4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maxwell WA, Cionni RJ, Lehmann RP, Modi SS (2009) Functional outcomes after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric acrylic intraocular lenses with a +3.0 or +4.0 diopter addition power. Randomized multicenter clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:2054–2061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Amhaz H, Montés-Micó R, Valcárcel B, Ferrer-Blasco T (2009) Visual function after implantation of an aspheric bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:885–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kohnen T, Nuijts R, Levy P, Haefliger E, Alfonso JF (2009) Visual function after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses with a +3.0 D addition. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:2062–2069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Móntes-Micó R, España E, Bueno I, Charman WN, Menezo JL (2004) Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses; mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions. Ophthalmology 111:85–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zelichowska B, Rękas M, Stankiewicz A, Cerviño A, Montés-Micó R (2008) Apodized diffractive versus refractive multifocal intraocular lens: optical and visual evaluation. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:2036–2042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tachtaev UV (2008) Contrast sensitivity and glare testing after bifocal diffractive IOL implantation. Ophthalmosurgery 1:53–58

    Google Scholar 

  24. Van Nes FL, Bouman MA (1967) Spatial modulation transfer in the human eye. J Opt Soc Am 57:401–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hubel D (1988) Eye, Brain, and Vision. Henry Holt & Company, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kaymak H, Fahle M, Ott G, Mester U (2008) Intraindividual comparison of the effect of training on visual performance with ReSTOR and Tecnis diffractive multifocal IOLs. J Refract Surg 24:287–293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Matthews N, Liu Z, Qian N (2001) The effect of orientation learning on contrast sensitivity. Vision Res 41:463–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Goes FJ (2008) Multifocal IOLs. In: Alio JA, Elkady B, Klonowski P (eds) AcriLISA with MICS. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, New Delhi, pp 201–209

    Google Scholar 

  29. Davison JA, Simpson MJ (2006) History and devolopment of the apodized diffractive intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:849–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Goes FJ (2008) Multifocal IOLs. In: Weeber H (ed) Optical principles of multifocal IOLs. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, New Delhi, pp 3–11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Hida WT, Motta AF, Kara-José JN, Costa H, Tokunaga C, Cordeiro LN, Gemperli D, Nakano CT (2008) Comparison between OPD-Scan results and visual outcomes of Tecnis ZM900 and Restor SN60D3 diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Arq Bras Oftalmol 71:778–792

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Schwenn O, Krist R, Pfeiffer N (1999) Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 106:1878–1886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pieh S, Lackner B, Hanselmayer G, Zöhrer R, Sticker M, Weghaupt H, Fercher A, Scorpik C (2001) Halo size under distance and near conditions in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol 85:816–821

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Souza CE, Muccioli C, Soriano ES, Chalita MR, Oliveira F, Freitas LL, Meire LP, Tamaki C, Belfort R Jr (2006) Visual performance of AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive IOL: a prospective comparative trial. Am J Ophthalmol 141:827–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Goes FJ (2008) Multifocal IOLs. In: Rau M (ed) Male/female differences regarding patient satisfaction after implantation of maltifocal IOLs. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, New Delhi, pp 165–170

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chiam PJ, Chan JH, Aggarwal RK, Kasaby S (2006) ReStore intraocular lens implantation in cataract surgery: quality of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1459–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Woodward MA, Randleman BR, Stulting RD (2009) Dissatisfaction after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:992–997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. S.N. Fedorov IRTC Eye Microsurgery, Cheboksary Branch, pr. Tractorostroiteley, 10, Cheboksary, 428028, Russia

    Anna Voskresenskaya, Nadezhda Pozdeyeva, Nicolay Pashtaev & Yevgeniy Batkov

  2. Scientific-Industrial Company “Reper-NN”, Moscow Highway, 85, Nizhni Novgorod, 603079, Russia

    Valeriy Treushnicov

  3. Nizhni Novgorod State University, pr. Gagarina, 23, Nizhni Novgorod, 603950, Russia

    Valentin Cherednik

Authors
  1. Anna Voskresenskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadezhda Pozdeyeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolay Pashtaev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yevgeniy Batkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valeriy Treushnicov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valentin Cherednik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Voskresenskaya.

Additional information

Presentation at the 107th Congress of the German Society of Ophthalmology (DOG) in Leipzig, September 2009

The authors have no conflict of interests or financial disclosures.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Voskresenskaya, A., Pozdeyeva, N., Pashtaev, N. et al. Initial results of trifocal diffractive IOL implantation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248, 1299–1306 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1424-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1424-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation