Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses: A meta-analysis
Open Access
- 26 October 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 12 (10), e0186522
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186522
Abstract
To compare the clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses in bilateral cataract and/or refractive lens exchange (RLE) surgery. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Web of Science was performed through October 2016 to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. The primary outcomes were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), defocus curve, spectacle independence, patient satisfaction and contrast sensitivity. The secondary outcomes were residual sphere, spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder and complications. Six RCTs and 2 cohort studies including 568 eyes (278 in the trifocal group and 290 in the bifocal group) were identified. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in UDVA (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.05 to -0.01, P = 0.005), but the difference (0.03 log MAR) is not clinically significant. Intermediate visual acuity was better in the trifocal IOL group judging from UIVA and defocus curves. There was a statically significant difference between the two groups in residual cylinder (WMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.20, P = 0.02), and subgroup AT Lisa tri 839MP trifocal also showed significant better UNVA than bifocal IOLs (WMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.17 to -0.08, P<0.00001). However, no significant differences were observed in UNVA (WMD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.02, P = 0.19), spectacle independence (WMD: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.89 to 18.15, P = 0.07), patient satisfaction (WMD: 4.01, 95% CI: 0.07 to 22.72, P = 0.87), residual sphere (WMD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.13, P = 0.74), SE (WMD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.16, P = 0.55) or complications (WMD: 2.08, 95% CI: 0.35 to 12.43, P = 0.42). Trifocal IOL technology (especially AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal) had a clear advantage over bifocal IOLs in intermediate visual acuity, while both trifocal IOLs and bifocal IOLs showed excellent performance in distance visual acuity. AT Lisa trifocal 839M trifocal could provide better uncorrected near visual acuity than bifocal IOLs. However, more evidence is needed to compare their spectacle independence, higher satisfaction rate, and photic phenomena.Funding Information
- Health Bureau of Shanghai City (201440029)
This publication has 62 references indexed in Scilit:
- Visual performance after the implantation of a new trifocal intraocular lensClinical Ophthalmology, 2013
- Multifocal intraocular lenses in cataract surgery: Literature review of benefits and side effectsJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2013
- Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of a fully diffractive trifocal lensClinical Ophthalmology, 2012
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Visual function and patient satisfaction: Comparison between bilateral diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses and monovision pseudophakiaJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2011
- Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysesEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Maximizing Satisfaction with Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses: The Missing LinksAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2008
- One-Year Outcomes with New-Generation Multifocal Intraocular LensesOphthalmology, 2008
- Aberration and contrast sensitivity comparison of aspherical and monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens eyesClinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 2007
- Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantationOphthalmology, 1999