{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04834849210148397, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03973192915270465, 'mean_word_length': 4.870786516853933, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Outcomes of bilateral implantation of trifocal and extended depth of focus IOLs].

In recent years, a new class of extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lenses (IOLs) has become available on the market. There is only a limited number of scientific papers comparing trifocal and EDOF IOL data, and the results are often contradictory.


PURPOSE
Comparative analysis of the results of trifocal and EDOF IOL implantation in patients with presbyopia and/or cataract.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
This prospective study included 72 patients (144 eyes) after bilateral implantation of either Tecnis Symfony EDOF IOL (18 patients, 36 eyes; group I) or AcrySof PanOptix trifocal IOL (54 patients, 108 eyes; group II). In 18 patients out of 72 (25%) the implantation involved mini-monovision, i.e. the calculation of the IOL power on the nondominant eye was performed at -0.5 D. The average follow-up period for the patients was 7.1±1.2 months.


RESULTS
There was a significant (p<0.05) increase in uncorrected near visual acuity (UCNVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UCIVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) at the maximum follow-up time compared to the preoperative indices in all groups. Group II was characterized by slightly better UCNVA dynamics (0.85±0.13 versus 0.2±0.04 before surgery, as comparted to 0.78±0.11 versus 0.19±0.06 before surgery in group I), but differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Statistically significant differences (p=0.046) were observed when comparing best corrected near vision acuity (BCNVA) in groups I and II (0.79±0.05 and 0.98±0.08, respectively) at 6 months compared to the preoperative period (0.62±0.09 and 0.6±0.11, respectively).


CONCLUSION
Trifocal IOL implantation was associated with acceptable near and far vision correction and a higher frequency of adverse optical phenomena, while implantation of the EDOF IOL was associated with slightly better correction of intermediate vision and a significantly lower incidence of halo and glare. Patients were satisfied with the outcomes of surgery in all cases.