Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparison of visual outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and a refractive bifocal intraocular lens in eyes with axial myopia: a prospective cohort study

BMC Ophthalmology volume 22, Article number: 407 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To assess and compare the efficacy, safety, accuracy, predictability and visual quality of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL in eyes with axial myopia.

Methods

This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with implantation of the diffractive trifocal IOL or the refractive bifocal IOL. Eyes were divided into four groups according to the IOL implanted and axial length. Manifest refraction, uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at far, intermediate and near distances, prediction error of spherical equivalent (SE), contrast sensitivity and aberrations were evaluated three months after surgery.

Results

In total, 80 eyes of 80 patients were included: 20 eyes in each group. Three months postoperatively, the corrected distance visual acuity of two trifocal groups were significantly better than the axial myopia bifocal group (P = 0.007 and 0.043). There was no significant difference of postoperative SE (P = 0.478), but the SE predictability of the trifocal IOL was better, whether in axial myopia groups (P = 0.015) or in control groups (P = 0.027). The contrast sensitivity was similar among four groups. The total aberration, higher order aberration and trefoil aberration of bifocal groups were significantly higher (all P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The diffractive trifocal IOL and the refractive bifocal IOL both provided good efficacy, accuracy, predictability and safety for eyes with axial myopia. By contrast, the trifocal IOL had a better performance in corrected distance visual acuity and visual quality.

Trial registration

The study was retrospectively registered and posted on clinicaltrials.gov at 12/02/2020 (NCT04265846).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

With the development of technology and medical equipment, today’s cataract surgery is able to provide patients with good visual acuity at different distances to prevent presbyopia [1]. Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs), aimed to meet the increasing demand for spectacle independence, has played a very important role in cataract surgery [2]. AT LISA tri 839MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) which distributes the light into 3 focal points, has already been proved to be able to provide great visual quality while correcting presbyopia [3,4,5,6]. SBL-3 (Lenstec, Inc., Christ Church, Barbados), a refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL, has also been widely adopted by surgeons around the world [7,8,9].

In the worldwide, almost 26.5% of adults and 11.7% of adolescents are suffering from myopia [10]. In southern China, approximately 78.4% of adolescents are suffering from myopia, and this proportion has reached 80% in northern China [11, 12]. Unfortunately, with the more and more widespread use of computers and smart phones, these ratios tend to rise gradually. In the future, the proportion of myopia in patients undergoing cataract surgery will also gradually increase. In addition, there seems to be a connection between high myopia and cataract formation. Previous studies have shown that people with spherical equivalent less than -0.5 diopter (D) have a 2–5 times higher risk of developing nuclear cataract and a 30 percent higher risk of developing posterior subcapsular cataract [13, 14]. However, patients with myopia have a susceptibility to other eye diseases, such as retinal diseases and strabismus. It will also add difficulty to the calculation of the required IOL power for cataract patients [15,16,17,18]. Despite these difficulties, several studies have applied MIOLs in the treatment of cataract in patients with myopia, which has been proved to be effective [19, 20].

In this study, we analyzed postoperative visual acuity at different distances, postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) and its prediction error, contrast sensitivity and aberrations of eyes after implantation of one of the MIOLs mentioned above. Through comparison, we focused on the efficacy, accuracy, predictability, safety and visual quality of the two MIOLs implanted in eyes with axial myopia.

Methods

Patients

This was a prospective cohort study. Cataract patients who underwent cataract surgery with AT LISA tri 839MP or SBL-3 implantation from September 2017 to January 2020 at Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital were enrolled in this study. Informed consent was obtained from patients before data collection. Patients decided which IOL was to be implanted. For patients with bilateral MIOL implantation, only one randomly selected eye was to be included in this study. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received the approval of Peking University Third Hospital Science Research Ethics Committee (IRB00006761-M2019414). The study was retrospectively registered and posted on clinicaltrials.gov at 12/02/2020 (NCT04265846).

The inclusion criteria were as followed: (1) age of patients more than 18 years old; (2) eyes with axial length (AL) ranging from 22.00 mm to 28.00 mm; (3) eyes with prediction of postoperative corneal astigmatism less than 1.0 D; (4) eyes with photopic pupil diameter ranging from 2.75 mm to 5.75 mm; (5) eyes with angle kappa less than 0.5 mm; (6) eyes with corneal spherical aberration less than 0.5 μm. Exclusion criteria were serious intraoperative complications, glaucoma, pseudoexfoliation syndrome, uveitis, macular degeneration or other retinal impairment, corneal scarring, amblyopia or having difficulties with examinations or 3 months’ follow-up.

According to whether the AL more than 24.00 mm and the IOL implanted, eyes were divided into four groups. They are the axial myopia trifocal group (Group A), the control trifocal group (Group B), the axial myopia bifocal group (Group C) and the control bifocal group (Group D).

Intraocular lenses

The AT LISA tri 839MP IOL is a diffractive trifocal IOL with a diffractive profile on its anterior surface. It is a bi-aspheric IOL with a -0.18 spherical aberration. It is made of foldable hydrophilic acrylic material with a water content of 25%, while its surface is hydrophobic. This preloaded IOL has a 6.0 mm biconvex optic, a total diameter of 11.0 mm and a 4-haptic design. Its edge is designed to be 360-degree square to prevent posterior capsule opacification. In addition, there is a trifocal diffractive pattern within a diameter of 4.3 mm and bifocal pattern between 4.3 mm and 6.0 mm of diameter. The near add of the IOL is + 3.33 D, while the intermediate add is + 1.66 D. The available spherical power is between 0.00 and + 32.00 D with 0.50D increments [3, 21].

As a refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL, the SBL-3 IOL is a bi-aspheric hydrophilic acrylic IOL with a neutral aberration profile, a 5.75 mm optic and an 11.0 mm total diameter. It has a near segment with a + 3.00 D addition in the inferior anterior optic. The near segment occupies 42% of the optic and the distance segment occupies 50%. A small wedge-shaped transition zone separates them. The available spherical power is between + 10.00 and + 36.00D with 0.50D increments, with the most commonly used powers (range from + 15.00D to + 25.00D) being available in 0.25D increments [7].

Preoperative examinations

All patients underwent full preoperative examinations, including slitlamp evaluation, tonometry, manifest refraction, biometric evaluation (IOLMaster 500, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG), corneal aberrometry and topography (Pentacam HR, Oculus Optikgerate GmbH), dilated fundoscopy and retinal optical coherence tomography examination (Cirrus 4000, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity were measured at 5 m with logMAR E chart. Visual acuity was recorded in the form of logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) value.

IOL power calculation and refractive target strategy

Holladay 2 formula was applied to calculate the IOL power for all eyes (IOLMaster 500, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). Optimized A-constants of the trifocal IOL and the bifocal IOL for the surgeon in this study were applied. To improve the intermediate visual acuity and avoid distant drift of the near focal point and hyperopia and presbyopia symptoms, a mild myopic target SE was expected for every group [22]. However, as IOL type had significant influence in the accuracy of IOL power calculation, personalized refractive targets were selected based on clinical experience (a target of -0.10 D for the trifocal IOL and 0.10 D for the bifocal IOL).

Surgical technique

All surgical procedures were performed by the same experienced surgeon (HQ) using topical anesthesia. If the corneal astigmatism of the surgery eye was lower than 0.50 D, a primary incision located at 135° and an auxiliary incision located at 45° were created, or an incision on the preoperative steep meridian of the corneal astigmatism was chosen. The incisions were all created under the conduction of Callisto Eye System (Carl Zeiss Meditec). After a 5.0–5.5 mm anterior capsulorhexis was created and phacoemulsification (Centurion Vision System, Alcon Laboratories Inc), an AT LISA tri 839MP IOL or an SBL-3 IOL was implanted into the capsular bag. All patients followed the same postoperative regimen for 1 month, including 1 drop each of levofloxacin, diclofenac sodium and prednisolone acetate 4 times a day. The frequency decreased by 1 time a week.

Postoperative examinations

Patients underwent routine examinations, including visual acuity, tonometry and slitlamp evaluation at 1 day, 1 week and 1 month after surgery. Besides, all patients underwent comprehensive evaluation 3 months postoperatively. Examinations included manifest refraction, uncorrected and distance-corrected visual acuity at far, intermediate (80 cm) and near (40 cm) distances (UDVA, UIVA, UNVA, CDVA, CIVA and CNVA), contrast sensitivity and aberrations. Using the OPTEC 6500 Vision Tester (Stereo Optical Co. Inc, Chicago, USA), contrast sensitivity was conducted under four conditions, including photopic(85 cd/m2), mesopic(3 cd/m2), photopic with glare and mesopic with glare. Besides, there are five spatial frequencies (1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree [cpd]) under every condition. Aberrations were measured with OPD-Scan III (NIDEK Technologies, Japan). A certified optometrist who was independent of the surgeons and main investigators performed all the postoperative examinations.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics for Windows software (version 22.0, IBM Corp, USA). Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess the consistency between the sample and normal distribution. If the variants are in accordance with normal distribution, one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean between groups. Otherwise, Kruskal–Wallis H test was applied. Researchers performing statistical analysis were also blinded. For all statistical analysis, data were expressed as mean ± SD. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographic and preoperative parameters

A total of 80 eyes of 80 patients (36 males and 44 females) were included in this study, with 20 eyes in Group A (7 males and 13 females), 20 eyes in Group B (11 males and 9 females), 20 eyes in Group C (14 males and 6 females) and 20 eyes in Group D (4 males and 16 females). The average age of all patients was 68.9 ± 10.6 years old. As shown in Table 1, there was no significant difference in age, uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity and corneal astigmatism among four groups (P = 0.455, 0.423, 0.655 and 0.735). No significant difference of AL, anterior chamber depth, pupil diameter, preoperative SE and IOL power were found between two axial myopia groups (P = 0.293, 0.697, 0.448, 0.487 and 0.548) or two control groups (P = 0.489, 0.836, 0.876, 0.155 and 0.072). There were significant differences of AL, anterior chamber depth and IOL power between the two AT LISA tri 839MP groups (P = 0.007, 0.030 and < 0.001) and the two SBL-3 groups (P = 0.033, 0.004 and < 0.001). No significant difference of target SE was found between two AT LISA tri 839MP groups (P = 0.687) or two SBL-3 groups (P = 0.490). However, target SE was significantly different between two axial myopia groups (P < 0.001) or two control groups (P < 0.001), which meant the selection of target SE of two IOLs was different.

Table 1 Demographic and preoperative characteristics
Full size table

The efficacy after implantation of the two IOLs

Figure 1 showed the distribution of cumulative visual acuity of four groups three months after implantation. As is shown in Table 2, only the CDVA of Group A and B was significantly better than Group C (P = 0.007 and 0.043). It is consistent with the percentages of eyes reached 0.00 logMAR shown in Fig. 1b. No other significant difference was found in uncorrected and distance-corrected visual acuity at different distances (all P > 0.05).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The distribution of cumulative visual acuity of four groups three months after implantation. (CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity; CIVA = corrected intermediate visual acuity; CNVA = corrected near visual acuity; logMAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; UIVA = uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; UNVA = uncorrected near visual acuity)

Full size image
Table 2 Visual acuity and refractive results three months after implantation
Full size table

The accuracy after implantation of two IOLs

The difference between postoperative SE and emmetropia was used to analyze the accuracy. The percentages of eyes with postoperative SE between -0.25D and 0.25D in four groups were 35%, 50%, 45% and 55% (Fig. 2). Most of eyes in four groups had postoperative SE ranged from -1.00D to 0.25D. There was no significant of postoperative SE among four groups (Table 2, P = 0.478).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The SE refractive accuracy of four groups three months after implantation. (D = dioptre; SE = spherical equivalent)

Full size image

The predictability after implantation of two IOLs

The prediction error was the difference between target SE and postoperative SE. The prediction error of two AT LISA tri 839MP groups mostly ranged from -0.25D to 0.75D, while that of two SBL-3 groups mostly ranged from -0.25D to 1.00D or more (Fig. 3). As is shown in Table 2, there was no difference of prediction error between two AT LISA tri 839MP groups or two SBL-3 groups (P = 0.202 and 0.300). However, Group A had a smaller prediction error than Group C (P = 0.015), and Group B had a smaller prediction error than Group D (P = 0.027).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The PE of postoperative SE of four groups three months after implantation. (D = dioptre; PE = prediction error; SE = spherical equivalent)

Full size image

The safety after implantation of two IOLs

During the three months’ follow-up, the CDVA of all eyes was better than that preoperatively. No postoperative complication was found. All patients will take a longer follow-up to confirm the long-term safety and stability.

Contrast sensitivity

The graphs of mean contrast sensitivity at five different frequencies under different light conditions were shown in Fig. 4. No significant difference of contrast sensitivity was found among four groups at any spatial frequency and under any light condition, except the contrast sensitivity of Group A was better than the other three groups at 12 cpd under mesopic with glare condition (P = 0.008, 0.049 and 0.014).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Contrast sensitivity curves of four groups three months after implantation. (cpd = cycles per degree; *Statistically significant difference [P < 0.05])

Full size image

Aberrations

There was significant difference of total aberration, higher order aberration, trefoil aberration and modulation transfer function (MTF) between two axial myopia groups (Table 3, all P < 0.001) or two control groups (all P < 0.001). The coma aberration of Group A was significantly smaller than Group C (P = 0.021), and that of Group B also had a trend to be smaller than Group D (P = 0.056). As for spherical aberration, significant difference was only found between Group A and Group D (P = 0.048). The Strehl ratio (SR) of Group A and B were higher than that of Group C and D (P < 0.001).

Table 3 Aberrations, MTF and SR three months after implantation
Full size table

Discussion

AL will affect the visual quality after IOL implantation in many ways. Many ophthalmologists are cautious about the use of MIOL in patients with axial myopia. As cataract formation would increase the degree of myopia, AL was an important parameter to evaluate the refractive status of cataract patients. According to a large sample study in 2018, the average of AL was 23.96 mm of 13 301 cataract eyes and 23.89 mm of another 5 200 cataract eyes [18]. Another population‐based study included 2 957 adults with an average AL of 23.67 mm [23]. And there were several studies selected 24.00 mm as the inclusion criterion for myopia patients [24, 25]. In addition, several studies have concluded that AT LISA tri 839MP provided satisfactory short-term visual outcomes in highly myopic eyes with low IOL power (0.00 to 10.00 D) [19], but its retinal concerns in the long-term follow-up were also very important [26]. The available spherical power of SBL-3 was between + 10.00 and + 36.00 diopter (D) [7]. The lowest power of + 10.00 D corresponded to an AL of around 26.00 mm. It could not be applied in eyes with higher AL. However, the most commonly used powers (range from + 15.00 to + 25.00 D) of SBL-3 was available in 0.25 D increments, which provided more accurate powers than other multifocal IOLs. Along with its excellent performance in the intermediate visual acuity and reasonable price, it was very meaningful to study the application of SBL-3 in patients with mild and moderate myopia [7]. To sum up, the AL over 24.00 mm was considered as a grouping criterion to evaluate the efficacy, accuracy, predictability, safety and visual quality of the two MIOLs in eyes with axial myopia.

The result of demographics showed similar characteristics, which made the data of eyes in four groups can be compared with less statistical bias. During the three months’ follow-up, the CDVA of all eyes was better than that preoperatively. Three months after implantation, we found satisfactory visual results in the two axial myopia groups. The postoperative visual acuity at far, intermediate and near distances in four groups are similar to findings in previous studies with the same length of postoperative follow-up [9, 19, 27]. Wang, et al. had concluded that SBL-3 IOL provided a relatively wider range of intermediate vision in bifocal IOLs [28]. Consistent with that, the UIVA and CIVA of SBL-3 IOL was similar to the trifocal IOL in this study. These all indicated that both MIOLs provided reliable effects for eyes with axial myopia.

In previous studies, long AL has been proved to strongly influence the accuracy of IOL power prediction [15, 16]. The prediction errors are partially because of measurement errors. To avoid this, IOLMaster 500, a partial coherence interferometry measurement, was used to improve the accuracy of preoperative biometric evaluation in this study [29]. In addition, the limited performance of third-generation formulas also accounted for the prediction errors [30, 31]. Cheng et al. applied modified AL adjustment and successfully improved the accuracy [32]. In this study, we used Holliday 2 formula, a fourth-generation formula that takes into consideration more variables, to calculate IOL power and predict residual SE. It showed relatively high accuracy for AL ranged from 21.00 to 27.00 mm [18]. Relatively new formulas, such as Barrett Universal II formula and Olsen formula, did have higher accuracy in IOL power calculation across a wide range of AL [18]. But they were not available in China mainland when the study started. With the optimized A-constants of the trifocal IOL and the bifocal IOL and personalized refractive target strategy, all the four groups in this study achieved similar mild myopic SE postoperatively, which was consistent with the expectation.

According to the analysis of the correlation between prediction error and AL in a study which included 13 301 eyes with a monofocal IOL in America, Holladay 2 formula produced myopic drift outcomes for eyes with AL shorter than 24.00 mm, and hyperopic drift outcomes for eyes with AL longer than 24.00 mm [18]. However, Chinese eyes have been shown to have smaller anterior chamber depth, which influenced the IOL power calculation a lot [33]. And the A-constants of different IOLs also had a big impact. These would have a significant impact on IOL power calculation. In this study, there was a tendency that axial myopia groups had smaller degree of myopia drift than corresponding control group. It was consistent with the pattern mentioned above and would be more obvious if more patients with longer AL were included. Besides, the predictability of AT LISA tri 839MP IOL was better than that of SBL-3 when applying the Holladay 2 formula, whether in axial myopia groups or control groups. To sum up, both AL and IOL type played very important roles in personalized MIOL application in eyes with axial myopia, but the influence of AL was not so obvious in the AL range in this study.

Contrast sensitivity describes the ability of the visual system to discern between luminances of different levels in a static image. Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity describe different aspects of vision. In this study, the contrast sensitivity of four groups was similar at any spatial frequency and under any light condition, except the trifocal group with axial myopia had a better performance at 12 cpd under mesopic with glare condition. In view of the similar results of contrast sensitivity of the two MIOLs under day condition, the difference under other conditions may come from different IOL designs. There is a trifocal diffractive pattern within a diameter of 4.3 mm and bifocal pattern between 4.3 mm and 6.0 mm of diameter at the optic of AT LISA tri 839MP. In dark environment, the pupils of a patient will enlarge so that more light will pass the bifocal area. It will increase the proportion of light energy allocated to the far focus, which will improve distance visual acuity. This can account for the better performance of AT LISA tri 839MP under night or night with glare condition to some extent. Further studies are needed to thoroughly explain the difference of contrast sensitivity in this study.

The optical characteristics of the IOL itself play an important role in postoperative aberrations. The two IOLs both have a bi-aspheric design. AT LISA tri 839MP IOL is a diffractive trifocal IOL with a -0.18 spherical aberration [3, 21]. SBL-3 IOL is a refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL with a neutral aberration profile. Data analysis shows that the spherical aberrations of four groups were similar, which indicated that the bi-aspheric design had a good performance in the reduction of spherical aberration [34]. However, the higher order aberration, coma aberration, trefoil aberration and MTF of AT LISA tri 839MP IOL were better than those of SBL-3 IOL. Correspondingly, the Strehl ratio of AT LISA tri 839MP IOL was higher. Montes-Mico R et al. also concluded that the diffractive IOL provided better optical quality than the rotationally asymmetric IOL [35]. The diffractive IOL had higher MTF values at all spatial frequencies compared with the rotationally asymmetric IOL. MTF shows how an optical system transmits spatial frequencies, which is closely related to the details of an object. Higher MTF values mean higher image quality.

As important parts of higher order aberration, coma aberration and trefoil aberration are both closely related to the decentration and tilt of IOL [36,37,38]. IOL in eyes with a long AL tended to have a higher risk of decentration and tilt [39, 40]. Decentration and tilt had a significant impact on optical quality with IOLs, being more severe with the rotationally asymmetric IOL [35]. Thereby, the visual acuity may also be influenced. It is consistent with the result of CDVA in this study. In addition, the postoperative rotation, decentration and tilt of IOL are also important problems for long AL eyes. Bert et al. reported a moderately myopic patient whose AT LISA tri toric 939MP IOL (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG), an undersized plate-haptic trifocal toric IOL, had rotated and tilted due to insufficient fixation in the large capsular bag of the myopic eye [41]. Further studies about IOLs in highly myopic eyes are needed to better clarify the mechanism.

Besides decentration and tilt, the rotation of IOL will influence the postoperative vision, especially for eyes with SBL-3. The rotation of SBL-3 will lead to the unbalanced distribution of light energy between the distance segment and the near segment [42, 43]. A long-term postoperative follow-up is necessary for myopic patients to detect postoperative complications in time, including the rotation and decentration of IOL.

The long-term efficacy and stability of IOLs are very important. It was a limitation of this study that there was no long-term assessment. Jaime et al. have conducted a 2-year assessment after AT LISA tri 839MP implantation in high myopic patients and concluded that retinal concerns, such as retinal detachment, could not be ignored in the long-term development [26]. A second limitation is the relatively small sample size, which was as a result of the strict inclusion criteria. As myopia is closely related to other conditions affecting visual acuity such as myopic maculopathy [44], the implantation of MIOLs for myopic patients must be very cautious. The risk of surgery complications, such as IOL decentration, is also higher. Detailed preoperative evaluation was also the basis of this study. A third limitation was the relatively small range of AL in this study, which was mainly limited by the IOL power range of SBL-3. Besides, binocular visual outcomes, which could reflect real world vision, were not included in this study. Many binocular parameters, including binocular vision, life quality evaluation, overall satisfaction and so on, also played important roles after IOL implantation.

We can conclude that the diffractive trifocal IOL and the refractive rotationally asymmetric bifocal IOL both provided good efficacy, accuracy, predictability and safety for eyes with axial myopia. By contrast, the diffractive trifocal IOL had a better performance in corrected distance visual acuity and visual quality.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Hong Qi, upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ACD:

Anterior chamber depth

AL:

Axial length

CDVA:

Corrected distance visual acuity

CIVA:

Corrected intermediate visual acuity

CNVA:

Corrected near visual acuity

cpd:

Cycles per degree

D:

Dioptre

IOL:

Intraocular lens

logMAR:

Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution

MIOL:

Multifocal intraocular lens

MTF:

Modulation Transfer Function

PE:

Prediction error

SE:

Spherical equivalent

SR:

Strehl ratio

UDVA:

Uncorrected distance visual acuity

UIVA:

Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity

UNVA:

Uncorrected near visual acuity

References

  1. Schallhorn JM, Pantanelli SM, Lin CC, Al-Mohtaseb ZN, Steigleman WA 3rd, Santhiago MR, Olsen TW, Kim SJ, Waite AM, Rose-Nussbaumer JR. Multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses for the treatment of presbyopia: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(10):1469–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rampat R, Gatinel D. Multifocal and extended depth-of-focus intraocular lenses in 2020. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(11):e164–85.

  3. Ganesh S, Brar S, Pawar A. Long-term visual outcomes and patient satisfaction following bilateral implantation of trifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1453–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Almulhim AK, Alarfaj KM, Altaisan AA, Alromaih AZ, Aldawod RA. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of a new trifocal diffractive intraocular lens. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2018;32(4):310–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Caporossi O, Savastano A, Rizzo S. Comparative analysis of visual outcomes, reading skills, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction with two models of trifocal diffractive intraocular lenses and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256(10):1913–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Webers VSC, Bauer NJC, Saelens IEY, Creten OJM, Berendschot T, van den Biggelaar F, Nuijts R. Comparison of the intermediate distance of a trifocal IOL with an extended depth-of-focus IOL: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(2):193–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Venter JA, Barclay D, Pelouskova M, Bull CE. Initial experience with a new refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg. 2014;30(11):770–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McNeely RN, Pazo E, Spence A, Richoz O, Nesbit MA, Moore TCB, Moore JE. Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction 3 and 12 months after implantation of a refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(5):633–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McNeely RN, Pazo E, Spence A, Richoz O, Nesbit MA, Moore TCB, Moore JE. Visual quality and performance comparison between 2 refractive rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(8):1020–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Yekta A, Pakzad R, Ostadimoghaddam H, Khabazkhoob M. Global and regional estimates of prevalence of refractive errors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018;30(1):3–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wu LJ, You QS, Duan JL, Luo YX, Liu LJ, Li X, Gao Q, Zhu HP, He Y, Xu L, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of myopia in high-school students in Beijing. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120764.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. He M, Huang W, Zheng Y, Huang L, Ellwein LB. Refractive error and visual impairment in school children in rural southern China. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(2):374–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pan CW, Boey PY, Cheng CY, Saw SM, Tay WT, Wang JJ, Tan AG, Mitchell P, Wong TY. Myopia, axial length, and age-related cataract: the Singapore Malay eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(7):4498–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanthan GL, Mitchell P, Rochtchina E, Cumming RG, Wang JJ. Myopia and the long-term incidence of cataract and cataract surgery: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;42(4):347–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chong EW, Mehta JS. High myopia and cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27(1):45–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abulafia A, Barrett GD, Rotenberg M, Kleinmann G, Levy A, Reitblat O, Koch DD, Wang L, Assia EI. Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 26.0 mm: comparison of formulas and methods. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(3):548–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dalto RF, Ferreira MA, Queiroz W, Coelho RP, Paula JS, Messias A. Haigis and SRKT formulae accuracy for intentional myopic overcorrection. Int Ophthalmol. 2018;38(4):1459–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ. Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(2):169–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinwender G, Schwarz L, Bohm M, Slavik-Lencova A, Hemkeppler E, Shajari M, Kohnen T. Visual results after implantation of a trifocal intraocular lens in high myopes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(6):680–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen SY, Xie C, Wang Y, Shen Y. Full-vision maintenance in extra-high myopia from implantable collamer lens to trifocal intraocular lens implantation. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018;11(7):1239–42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sezgin Asena B. Visual and refractive outcomes, spectacle independence, and visual disturbances after cataract or refractive lens exchange surgery: Comparison of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(11):1539–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vinciguerra P, Holladay JT, Pagano L, Gramigna M, Borgia A, Lanni V, Legrottaglie E, Vinciguerra R. Comparison of visual performance and satisfaction with a bilateral emmetropic vs a bilateral mild myopic target using a spherical monofocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(6):839–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tideman JWL, Polling JR, Vingerling JR, Jaddoe VWV, Williams C, Guggenheim JA, Klaver CCW. Axial length growth and the risk of developing myopia in European children. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(3):301–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tekce A, Gulmez M. Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes of diffractive bifocal toric and trifocal toric intraocular lenses 12 months after implantation in patients with moderate to high myopia. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(9):3029–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee J, Ahn EJ, Kim YW, Ha A, Kim YK, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Impact of myopia on the association of long-term intraocular pressure fluctuation with the rate of progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(5):653–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Javaloy J, Rivera E, Montalban R, Beltran J, Munoz G, Rohrweck S. Diffractive trifocal pseudophakic intraocular lenses in high myopic eyes: 2-year assessment after implantation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;257(6):1331–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Garcia-Perez JL, Gros-Otero J, Sanchez-Ramos C, Blazquez V, Contreras I. Short term visual outcomes of a new trifocal intraocular lens. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang X, Tu H, Wang Y. Comparative analysis of visual performance and optical quality with a rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens and an apodized diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:7923045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond). 2002;16(5):552–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bang S, Edell E, Yu Q, Pratzer K, Stark W. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculations using the IOLMaster in eyes with long axial length and a comparison of various formulas. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(3):503–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang L, Shirayama M, Ma XJ, Kohnen T, Koch DD. Optimizing intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with axial lengths above 25.0 mm. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(11):2018–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cheng H, Liu L, Sun A, Wu M. Accuracy of modified axial length adjustment for intraocular lens power calculation in Chinese axial myopic eyes. Curr Eye Res. 2020;45(7):827–33.

  33. Leung CK, Palmiero PM, Weinreb RN, Li H, Sbeity Z, Dorairaj S, Leung D, Liu S, Liebmann JM, Congdon N, et al. Comparisons of anterior segment biometry between Chinese and Caucasians using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(9):1184–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mester U, Dillinger P, Anterist N. Impact of a modified optic design on visual function: clinical comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(4):652–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Montes-Mico R, Lopez-Gil N, Perez-Vives C, Bonaque S, Ferrer-Blasco T. In vitro optical performance of nonrotational symmetric and refractive-diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses: impact of tilt and decentration. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(9):1657–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lawu T, Mukai K, Matsushima H, Senoo T. Effects of decentration and tilt on the optical performance of 6 aspheric intraocular lens designs in a model eye. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(5):662–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nanavaty MA, Spalton DJ, Marshall J. Effect of intraocular lens asphericity on vertical coma aberration. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(2):215–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Perez-Merino P, Marcos S. Effect of intraocular lens decentration on image quality tested in a custom model eye. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(7):889–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhu X, He W, Zhang Y, Chen M, Du Y, Lu Y. Inferior Decentration of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in Myopic Eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;188:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhu X, He W, Zhang K, Lu Y. Factors influencing 1-year rotational stability of AcrySof Toric intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(2):263–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Giers BC, Khoramnia R, Weber LF, Tandogan T, Auffarth GU. Rotation and decentration of an undersized plate-haptic trifocal toric intraocular lens in an eye with moderate myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(3):489–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pazo EE, Richoz O, McNeely R, Millar ZA, Moore TC, Moore JE. Optimized visual outcome after asymmetrical multifocal IOL rotation. J Refract Surg. 2016;32(7):494–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu Y, Gao Y, Liu R, Hu C, Ma B, Miao J, Luo J, Qi H. Influence of angle kappa-customized implantation of rotationally asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens on visual quality and patient satisfaction. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98(6):e734–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hopf S, Korb C, Nickels S, Schulz A, Münzel T, Wild PS, Michal M, Schmidtmann I, Lackner KJ, Pfeiffer N, et al. Prevalence of myopic maculopathy in the German population: results from the Gutenberg health study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(9):1254–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Liyuan Tao, PhD, provided assistance with statistics.

Boping Ma, MD, provided assistance with methods in optometry.

Funding

The study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82171022, 81974128) and The Capital Health Research and Development of Special (2020–2-4097).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tong Sun and Yiyun Liu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China

    Tong Sun, Yiyun Liu, Chuhao Tang, Qianqian Lan, Tingting Yang, Xiaorui Zhao & Hong Qi

  2. Beijing Key Laboratory of Restoration of Damaged Ocular Nerve, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China

    Tong Sun, Yiyun Liu, Chuhao Tang, Qianqian Lan, Tingting Yang, Xiaorui Zhao & Hong Qi

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of Yunnan University, Kunming, China

    Yufei Gao

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, the People’s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, China

    Qianqian Lan

  5. Present Address: Beijing, P R China

    Hong Qi

Authors
  1. Tong Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yiyun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yufei Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chuhao Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qianqian Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tingting Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaorui Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hong Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TS, YL, YG and HQ were responsible for the conception and design of this study. YG, QL and TY acquired the data. TS, YL and CT analyzed and interpreted the patient data. TS was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. YL, XZ and HQ revised the manuscript critically. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong Qi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received the approval of Peking University Third Hospital Science Research Ethics Committee (IRB00006761-M2019414). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, T., Liu, Y., Gao, Y. et al. Comparison of visual outcomes of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens and a refractive bifocal intraocular lens in eyes with axial myopia: a prospective cohort study. BMC Ophthalmol 22, 407 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02626-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02626-1

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us