ISSN : 3023-7505
  • Home
  • About The Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Contact
Current Issue
Ahead Of Print
Archive
Search
Most Popular
Download Articles Read Articles
Automated Perimetry
Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors
Intra Ocular Lens Power Calculation and Optic Biometry...
Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma
Visual Field Defect and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Defect in a Case of Optic Nerve Head Drusen...
Current Minimal Invasive Angle Procedures Without Implants for the Treatment of Glaucoma...
Intra Ocular Lens Power Calculation and Optic Biometry...
Automated Perimetry
Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors
Visual Field Defect and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Defect in a Case of Optic Nerve Head Drusen...
PureSee Kesintisiz Yüksek Kalitede Görüş
TJ-CEO 2024 , Vol 19 , Num 2
Abstract Free Full Text Similar Articles Mail to Author
Comparison of sinusoidal vision trifocal intraocular lens with monofocal extended depth of focus intraocular lens after cataract surgery
Mahmut Erkam Arslan1, Necati Duru2
1MD, FEBO, Department of Ophthalmology, Kayseri City Training and Research Hospital, Kayseri, Türkiye
2Assoc. Prof., MD, FEBO, Department of Ophthalmology, Kayseri City Training and Research Hospital, Kayseri, Türkiye
DOI : 10.37844/TJ-CEO.2024.19.14 Purpose: To evaluate and compare the clinical results of sinusoidal vision trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (AcrivaUD Trinova) and monofocal extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00)

Materials and Methods: This study included 98 eyes of 65 patients implanted with sinusoidal vision trifocal IOL and 79 eyes of 53 patients implanted with monofocal EDOF IOL. The following were evaluated; Uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (UIVA, CIVA), near visual acuity (UNVA, CNVA), halo, glare, ocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity, capsule opacification. In addition, The National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) results were analysed.

Results: Three months postoperatively, there were no differences between the groups in terms of UDVA and UIVA (respectively, p=0.780 and p=0.317). Near vision was found to be better for the Trinova group than for the Eyhance group (p<0.001). Eyhance IOL provided better contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies than Trinova IOL (p<0,001). Halo perception was reported for only six eyes, all of which were in the Trinova group (6.9%). Glare perception was found to be more common in the Trinova group (15 eyes (17.2%)), than in the Eyhance group (four eyes (5.3%)). With regard to the composite score of NEI-VFQ 25, no significant difference was found between the groups (p=0.201). In the analyses of subgroups, the near activities score was higher in the Trinova group, but distance activities and driving scores were higher in the Eyhance group (p<0,05).

Conclusion: Both lenses have been shown to have satisfactory levels of distance and intermediate vision, with high levels of patient satisfaction. Considering their advantages over each other, IOL preferences should be made according to the priorities of the patients. Keywords : Cataract, contrast sensitivity, glare, multifocal intraocular lenses

PureSee Kesintisiz Yüksek Kalitede Görüş
Home
About The Journal
Editorial Board
Instructions for Authors
Contact