Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci
Hakan Kaymak,1,2 Richard Potvin,3 Kai Neller,1,2 Karsten Klabe,1 Robert Donald Anello4 On behalf of the NINO Study Group1Internationale Innovative Ophthalmochirurgie GbR, Duesseldorf, Germany; 2Institute of Experimental Ophthalmology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany; 3Science in Vision, F...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Dove Medical Press
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | Clinical Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.dovepress.com/customizing-clinical-outcomes-with-implantation-of-two-diffractive-tri-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTH |
| _version_ | 1827293024621690880 |
|---|---|
| author | Kaymak H Potvin R Neller K Klabe K Anello RD |
| author_facet | Kaymak H Potvin R Neller K Klabe K Anello RD |
| author_sort | Kaymak H |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Hakan Kaymak,1,2 Richard Potvin,3 Kai Neller,1,2 Karsten Klabe,1 Robert Donald Anello4 On behalf of the NINO Study Group1Internationale Innovative Ophthalmochirurgie GbR, Duesseldorf, Germany; 2Institute of Experimental Ophthalmology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany; 3Science in Vision, Frisco, TX, USA; 4Global Clinical and Medical Affairs, Hoya Surgical Optics, Irvine, CA, USACorrespondence: Robert Donald Anello, HOYA Surgical Optics, 110 Progress, Suite 175, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA, Tel +1 909-224-6149, Email bob.anello@hoya.comPurpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes after bilateral or contralateral implantation of the Gemetric™ (G) and Gemetric™ Plus (GPlus) diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, multi-center open-label study comparing clinical results and subjective patient responses around 6 months after implantation of the study lenses (toric and non-toric) in three different groups (bilateral G, bilateral GPlus and contralateral G/GPlus implantation). Results included the manifest refraction, uncorrected and distance corrected monocular and binocular visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate and near; the defocus curve; contrast sensitivity; and patient reported outcomes regarding spectacle independence, satisfaction and visual disturbances.Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean refraction spherical equivalent between the two lens models (p = 0.33) or between the toric and non-toric lenses (p = 0.06). Monocular VA was better at distance with the G lens and better at near with the GPlus lens (p < 0.01). Mean binocular VA was better than 0.1 logMAR at all distances for all groups, both uncorrected and distance corrected. The mean binocular distance corrected VA was better than 0.15 logMAR from 0.0 D to − 3.50 D for all groups. All VA data for the contralateral group was as good or better than for the bilateral GPlus group. Questionnaire results showed no difference between groups for the frequency, severity, or degree of bother of visual disturbances (p > 0.24).Conclusion: The two diffractive trifocal IOLs studied here may be used either bilaterally or contralaterally for the correction of presbyopia in cataract patients, providing excellent visual acuity with low levels of visual disturbances and high rates of overall spectacle independence. Bilateral Gemetric implantation resulted in slightly better distance and intermediate vision while contralateral implantation provided slightly better near vision. There was no apparent advantage to implanting the GPlus IOL bilaterally.Keywords: Gemetric™, Gemetric™ Plus, trifocal, presbyopia-correcting, diffractive, trifocal, Vivinex™ |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T13:18:05Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4967a721bcd54a71af4ebaa583db6960 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1177-5483 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T13:18:05Z |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | Dove Medical Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinical Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj.art-4967a721bcd54a71af4ebaa583db69602024-04-04T16:51:52ZengDove Medical PressClinical Ophthalmology1177-54832024-04-01Volume 181009102291693Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near FociKaymak HPotvin RNeller KKlabe KAnello RDHakan Kaymak,1,2 Richard Potvin,3 Kai Neller,1,2 Karsten Klabe,1 Robert Donald Anello4 On behalf of the NINO Study Group1Internationale Innovative Ophthalmochirurgie GbR, Duesseldorf, Germany; 2Institute of Experimental Ophthalmology, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany; 3Science in Vision, Frisco, TX, USA; 4Global Clinical and Medical Affairs, Hoya Surgical Optics, Irvine, CA, USACorrespondence: Robert Donald Anello, HOYA Surgical Optics, 110 Progress, Suite 175, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA, Tel +1 909-224-6149, Email bob.anello@hoya.comPurpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes after bilateral or contralateral implantation of the Gemetric™ (G) and Gemetric™ Plus (GPlus) diffractive trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, multi-center open-label study comparing clinical results and subjective patient responses around 6 months after implantation of the study lenses (toric and non-toric) in three different groups (bilateral G, bilateral GPlus and contralateral G/GPlus implantation). Results included the manifest refraction, uncorrected and distance corrected monocular and binocular visual acuity (VA) at distance, intermediate and near; the defocus curve; contrast sensitivity; and patient reported outcomes regarding spectacle independence, satisfaction and visual disturbances.Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean refraction spherical equivalent between the two lens models (p = 0.33) or between the toric and non-toric lenses (p = 0.06). Monocular VA was better at distance with the G lens and better at near with the GPlus lens (p < 0.01). Mean binocular VA was better than 0.1 logMAR at all distances for all groups, both uncorrected and distance corrected. The mean binocular distance corrected VA was better than 0.15 logMAR from 0.0 D to − 3.50 D for all groups. All VA data for the contralateral group was as good or better than for the bilateral GPlus group. Questionnaire results showed no difference between groups for the frequency, severity, or degree of bother of visual disturbances (p > 0.24).Conclusion: The two diffractive trifocal IOLs studied here may be used either bilaterally or contralaterally for the correction of presbyopia in cataract patients, providing excellent visual acuity with low levels of visual disturbances and high rates of overall spectacle independence. Bilateral Gemetric implantation resulted in slightly better distance and intermediate vision while contralateral implantation provided slightly better near vision. There was no apparent advantage to implanting the GPlus IOL bilaterally.Keywords: Gemetric™, Gemetric™ Plus, trifocal, presbyopia-correcting, diffractive, trifocal, Vivinex™https://www.dovepress.com/customizing-clinical-outcomes-with-implantation-of-two-diffractive-tri-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTHgemetric™gemetric™ plustrifocalpresbyopia-correctingdiffractivetrifocalvivinex™ |
| spellingShingle | Kaymak H Potvin R Neller K Klabe K Anello RD Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci Clinical Ophthalmology gemetric™ gemetric™ plus trifocal presbyopia-correcting diffractive trifocal vivinex™ |
| title | Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci |
| title_full | Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci |
| title_fullStr | Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci |
| title_full_unstemmed | Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci |
| title_short | Customizing Clinical Outcomes with Implantation of Two Diffractive Trifocal IOLs of Identical Design but Differing Light Distributions to the Far, Intermediate and Near Foci |
| title_sort | customizing clinical outcomes with implantation of two diffractive trifocal iols of identical design but differing light distributions to the far intermediate and near foci |
| topic | gemetric™ gemetric™ plus trifocal presbyopia-correcting diffractive trifocal vivinex™ |
| url | https://www.dovepress.com/customizing-clinical-outcomes-with-implantation-of-two-diffractive-tri-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OPTH |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kaymakh customizingclinicaloutcomeswithimplantationoftwodiffractivetrifocaliolsofidenticaldesignbutdifferinglightdistributionstothefarintermediateandnearfoci AT potvinr customizingclinicaloutcomeswithimplantationoftwodiffractivetrifocaliolsofidenticaldesignbutdifferinglightdistributionstothefarintermediateandnearfoci AT nellerk customizingclinicaloutcomeswithimplantationoftwodiffractivetrifocaliolsofidenticaldesignbutdifferinglightdistributionstothefarintermediateandnearfoci AT klabek customizingclinicaloutcomeswithimplantationoftwodiffractivetrifocaliolsofidenticaldesignbutdifferinglightdistributionstothefarintermediateandnearfoci AT anellord customizingclinicaloutcomeswithimplantationoftwodiffractivetrifocaliolsofidenticaldesignbutdifferinglightdistributionstothefarintermediateandnearfoci |