This study compares the visual and refractive performance of the TECNIS Synergy (DFR00V-DFW150-225-300-375) multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and the AcrySof IQ PanOptix (TFAT00-30-40-50-60) multifocal IOL. Patients who underwent phacoemulsification and cataract extraction and received either a multifocal Synergy or PanOptix IOL were included. Monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), near (UNVA), and corrected distance (CDVA) visual acuities were assessed at three and six months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures of photic phenomena were also assessed. A total of 140 patients (224 eyes) were included in this study, with 69 patients (105 eyes) in the Synergy group and 71 patients (119 eyes) in the PanOptix group. There were no statistically significant differences in UIVA or CDVA measurements across all time points. When assessing UDVA, at three months postoperatively, there were more eyes in the PanOptix group with vision better than 20/40 (p = 0.04). At three and six months postoperatively, the average UNVA was superior in the Synergy group (p = 0.01, 0.002). While the Synergy group reported more night vision disturbances at one and three months (p = 0.01, 0.03), the PanOptix group had more night vision disturbances at six months (p = 0.02). Although not statistically significant, the AcrySof IQ PanOptix multifocal IOL demonstrated better UDVA and UIVA sooner postoperatively than the TECNIS Synergy multifocal IOL. The Synergy IOL provided statistically better UNVA compared to the PanOptix IOL at three and six months postoperatively. Synergy patients reported more early photic phenomena than PanOptix patients, which later diminished.

/pdf/comparative-visual-outcome-analysis-of-a-diffractive-1k242627.pdf

Comparative Visual Outcome Analysis of a Diffractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens and a New Diffractive Multifocal Lens with Extended Depth of Focus

With great interest, we read the article by Moshirfar et al. [...].

/pdf/comment-on-moshirfar-et-al-accuracy-of-six-intraocular-lens-1e18cetr.pdf

Comment on Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947

Myopia is the leading cause of visual impairment in the world. With ever-increasing prevalence in these years, it creates an alarming global epidemic. In addition to the difficulty in seeing distant objects, myopia also increases the risk of cataract and advances its onset, greatly affecting the productivity of myopes of working age. Cataract management in myopic eyes, especially highly myopic eyes is originally more complicated than that in normal eyes, whereas the growing population of cataract with myopia, increasing popularity of corneal and lens based refractive surgery, and rising demand for spectacle independence after cataract surgery all further pose unprecedented challenges to ophthalmologists. Previous history of corneal refractive surgery and existence of implantable collamer lens will both affect the accuracy of biometry including measurement of corneal curvature and axial length before cataract surgery, which may result in larger intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction errors and a compromise in the surgical outcome especially in a refractive cataract surgery. A prudent choice of formula for cataract patients with different characteristics is essential in improving this condition. Besides, the characteristics of myopic eyes might affect the long-term stability of IOL, which is important for the maintenance of visual outcomes especially after the implantation of premium IOLs, thus a proper selection of IOL accordingly is crucial. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of the impact of myopia epidemic on treatment for cataract and to discuss new challenges that surgeons may encounter in the foreseeable future when planning refractive cataract surgery for myopic patients.

Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review

Background: Implantation of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of visual demands at various distances in patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery. We aimed to assess the visual performance and rates of photic phenomena, posterior capsule opacification (PCO), and spectacle independence in patients with bilateral implantation of the AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® multifocal IOL model TFNT00 at one and six months postoperatively. 
Methods: This prospective interventional cohort study included adult patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® IOL. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuities at far, intermediate, and near distances were measured preoperatively and at the one- and six-month postoperative follow-up examinations. The rates of photic phenomena, postoperative need for near and distance spectacles, and PCO were also recorded. 
Results: We included 164 eyes of 82 patients with a male-to-female ratio of 38 (46.3%) to 44 (53.7%) and a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 52.37 (7.62) years. There were statistically significant improvements in the visual acuities of both eyes across all distances at the one- and six-month follow-up examinations compared to the preoperative values (all P < 0.001), except for corrected near visual acuity in the right eye (P > 0.05) at six-month. We also detected significant postoperative improvements in visual acuities of both eyes across all distances at the six-month follow-up compared to values at the one-month follow-up (all P < 0.05), except for corrected near visual acuity in the right eye (P > 0.05). The photic phenomenon was reported by 12 (14.6%) of the 82 patients at the six-month postoperative follow-up. Five (6.1%) and eight (9.8%) of the 82 patients reported using spectacles for distance and near, respectively. Additionally, PCO developed in 19 (11.6%) of the 164 included eyes, although it was not clinically significant at six months. 
Conclusions: The AcrySof® IQ PanOptix® IOL model TFNT00 is recommended for use, given its excellent performance in all ranges of vision, a high rate of spectacle independence, and a good safety profile. Future comparative studies with longer follow-up periods are warranted to verify superiority of its performance over that of other available multifocal IOLs.

https://mehdijournal.com/index.php/mehdiophthalmol/article/download/1094/681

Outcomes after bilateral implantation of AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens: a prospective interventional study

Objective To evaluate the accuracy of 10 formulas for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in cataract eye with an axial length (AL) of more than 28.0 mm. Methods We searched scientific databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for research published over the past 5 years, up to Sept 2023. The inclusion criteria were case series studies that compared different formulas (Barrett II, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, Holladay 1 w-k and SRK/T w-k), in patients with extremely long AL undergoing uncomplicated cataract surgery with IOL implantation. The mean difference (MD) of mean absolute error (MAE) and the odds ratio (OR) of both the percentage of eyes within ±0.50D of prediction error (PPE±0.50D) and the percentage of eyes within ±1.00D of prediction error (PPE±1.00D) among different formulas were pooled using meta-analysis. Results A total of 11 studies, involving 1376 eyes, were included to evaluate the 10 formulas mentioned above. Among these formulas, Barrett II, EVO, Kane, and Hill-RBF demonstrated significantly lower MAE values compared to SRK/T. Furthermore, Kane and Hill-RBF had lower MAE values than EVO. Additionally, Barrett II and Kane yielded significantly lower MAE values than Haigis while Hill-RBF showed significantly lower MAE values than Holladay 1. Moreover, Hill-RBF showed the highest values for both PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D, followed by Kane. Both EVO and Kane had higher values of PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D compared to Haigis and SRK/T. Conclusion The Wang-Koch adjusted formulas and new-generation formulas have shown potential for higher accuracy in predicting IOL power for cataract patients with extremely long AL compared to traditional formulas. Based on the current limited clinical studies, Hill-RBF and Kane formulas seem to be a better choice for eyes with extremely long AL.

How to choose the intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial length? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang–Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula’s accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy.

/pdf/accuracy-of-six-intraocular-lens-power-calculations-in-eyes-5f81qr9d.pdf

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

We thank Cioni et al. for their suggestions and comments [...].

/pdf/reply-to-cione-et-al-comment-on-moshirfar-et-al-accuracy-of-1wpbjdyh.pdf

Reply to Cione et al. Comment on “Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947”

Purpose To compare the visual performance of the AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens and the TECNIS Symfony extended depth-of-focus lens at near and distance visual ranges. Methods A total of 146 patients (221 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification and cataract extraction and received either a PanOptix or Symfony lens from January 2019 to July 2020 were included in the study (83 PanOptix non-toric, 30 PanOptix toric, 70 Symfony non-toric, and 38 Symfony toric). Uncorrected distance (UDVA), uncorrected near (UNVA), and corrected distance (CDVA) visual acuity were assessed at one-day, one-month, and three-months postoperatively. Averages of UDVA, UNVA, and CDVA were taken to evaluate which lens was superior at near and distance visual ranges. Secondary outcome measures including glare, halo, dryness, and problems with night vision were documented at each postoperative visit. Results At one month postoperatively, the average UNVA was 0.16 ± 0.14 logMAR in the PanOptix group and 0.21 ± 0.14 logMAR in the Symfony group (P=0.007); the average UDVA for the PanOptix group was 0.09 ± 0.13 logMAR compared to the Symfony group at 0.10 ± 0.14 logMAR (P=0.67); and the average CDVA was 0.02 ± 0.05 logMAR in the PanOptix group and 0.00 ± 0.04 logMAR in the Symfony group (P=0.11). At three months postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences in UNVA, UDVA, or CDVA between the two groups (P=0.18, 0.79, 0.68 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in secondary outcome measures at one- and three-months (P=0.49, 0.10 respectively). Conclusion The AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens appears to afford better UNVA compared to the TECNIS Symfony extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens at one-month postoperatively, though this difference was not seen at three months postoperatively. There is no statistically significant difference in UDVA and CDVA between the two groups at postoperative day one, one-month, and three-months.

/pdf/comparison-of-the-visual-outcomes-of-an-extended-depth-of-3yhhjsjnf3.pdf

Comparison of the Visual Outcomes of an Extended Depth-of-Focus Lens and a Trifocal Lens.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Daniel Beesley

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

Reply to Cione et al. Comment on “Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947”

Comparison of the Visual Outcomes of an Extended Depth-of-Focus Lens and a Trifocal Lens.