Comparison of Visual Outcomes of Two Trifocal IOLs

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the visual outcomes of bilateral implantation of two commercially available trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) (AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL; Alcon Laboratories, Inc and AcrivaUD Trinova IOL; VSY Biotechnology). Methods: This comparative, investigator-initiated, single-center randomized trial was conducted by the Department of Ophthalmology of the Medipol Mega University Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. Adult patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio using a block randomization program to undergo cataract surgery and receive the implantation of either the PanOptix or Trinova IOL in both eyes. Outcome measures including binocular uncorrected and corrected visual acuities at distance, intermediate (66 cm), and near (40 cm), defocus curve, refractive outcomes, contrast sensitivity, glare and halos, and patient satisfaction were assessed at a minimum of 3 months following bilateral IOL implantation. Results: A total of 71 patients (142 eyes) were included, with 35 patients (70 eyes) in the PanOptix IOL group and 36 patients (72 eyes) in the Trinova IOL group. At the 3-month follow-up examination, mean distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (primary endpoint) was significantly better for the PanOptix IOL group (0.0 ± 0.09 logMAR) compared with the Trinova IOL group (0.01 ± 0.10 logMAR) ( P = .0304). Mean logMAR uncorrected intermediate acuity (UIVA) and near (UNVA) visual acuity were also significantly better for the PanOptix IOL group (UIVA = 0.1 ± 0.10 logMAR; UNVA= 0.0 ± 0.09 logMAR) compared with the Trinova IOL group (UIVA = 0.2 ± 0.10 logMAR; UNVA = 0.2 ± 0.11 logMAR) (both P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in all other outcomes between groups. No adverse events were reported in both groups. Conclusions: These results suggest that the PanOptix IOL provides better intermediate and near visual outcomes compared to the Trinova IOL and represents a good choice for patients seeking to achieve spectacle independence. [ J Refract Surg. 2023;39(8):524–530.]