Visual, refractive and patient-reported outcomes after two trifocal intraocular lens designs: a 12-month comparative cohort study.
- 1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Health Sciences, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, Darülaceze Cad. No: 27, Şişli, Istanbul, 34384, Türkiye. [email protected].
- 2Department of Ophthalmology, University of Health Sciences, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, Darülaceze Cad. No: 27, Şişli, Istanbul, 34384, Türkiye.
Abstract
Background
Trifocal intraocular lenses differ in how their optical architecture apportions incident light between foci, but comparative evidence combining acuity, defocus testing, contrast sensitivity and patient-reported outcomes in large routine-care cohorts is limited. We compared 12-month visual, refractive and patient-reported outcomes after implantation of two trifocal intraocular lens designs.Methods
This retrospective comparative cohort screened 432 patients and analysed one right eye from each of 340 patients (170 per group) implanted with a sinusoidal pupil-adaptive or a conventional diffractive trifocal lens. Allocation was non-randomised and individual selection reasons were unavailable. Primary outcomes, selected a priori before access to the study records, were 12-month uncorrected intermediate acuity at 65 cm and uncorrected near acuity at 40 cm. Assessment covered distance acuity, refractive accuracy, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, dysphotopsia, spectacle independence and the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25. Models adjusted for baseline and operative-period differences, with propensity-score sensitivity analyses.Results
At 12 months the sinusoidal design showed better intermediate acuity (0.09 (0.05) vs. 0.12 (0.05) logMAR; adjusted difference - 0.025, 95% CI - 0.037 to - 0.013) and near acuity (0.10 (0.06) vs. 0.16 (0.05) logMAR; -0.066, 95% CI - 0.080 to - 0.053; both P < 0.001). Propensity-weighted and doubly robust estimates were almost identical (near-acuity E-value 5.4). Refractive predictability was equivalent (83.5% vs. 84.7% within ± 0.50 D; P = 0.88); all eyes were within ± 1.00 D. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, defocus area-under-the-curve, contrast sensitivity at most tested spatial frequencies, halo, glare and questionnaire outcomes also favoured the sinusoidal design; distance-acuity differences were clinically negligible.Conclusions
Both designs achieved excellent distance vision and refractive predictability. The sinusoidal design was associated with better intermediate and near function across several independent measures, and the estimates were robust to propensity-score weighting. Because allocation was not randomised and the groups differed at baseline, residual confounding cannot be excluded and prospective confirmation is required.
Related
- Effect of residual spherical equivalent on visual outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens implantation in patients with cataracts across different refractive states
- Three-Year Functional Vision, Longitudinal Refractive Outcomes, and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Bilateral Implantation of the Extend Bessel-Optics Intraocular Lens: An Independent Real-World Ambispective Study
- Hydrophobic Acrylic Trifocal IOL in Post-Laser Refractive Surgery Eyes: Visual Performance, Predictability, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.
- Comparison of Visual and Ocular Hemodynamic Outcomes Following Trifocal vs Bifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Patients With Cataract and Myopia.
- Comparative Two-Year Outcomes of Three Different Three-Piece Intraocular Lenses in Flanged Intrascleral Fixation
BibTeX
@article{argon2026visual,
title = {{Visual, refractive and patient-reported outcomes after two trifocal intraocular lens designs: a 12-month comparative cohort study.}},
author = {Bora Deniz Argon and Enes Soyyiğit},
journal = {BMC ophthalmology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s12886-026-05426-z},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42902294},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Visual, refractive and patient-reported outcomes after two trifocal intraocular lens designs: a 12-month comparative cohort study.
AU - Bora Deniz Argon
AU - Enes Soyyiğit
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/20
JO - BMC ophthalmology
DO - 10.1186/s12886-026-05426-z
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42902294
AB - Background Trifocal intraocular lenses differ in how their optical architecture apportions incident light between foci, but comparative evidence combining acuity, defocus testing, contrast sensitivity and patient-reported outcomes in large routine-care cohorts is limited. We compared 12-month visual, refractive and patient-reported outcomes after implantation of two trifocal intraocular lens designs.Methods This retrospective comparative cohort screened 432 patients and analysed one right eye from each of 340 patients (170 per group) implanted with a sinusoidal pupil-adaptive or a conventional diffractive trifocal lens. Allocation was non-randomised and individual selection reasons were unavailable. Primary outcomes, selected a priori before access to the study records, were 12-month uncorrected intermediate acuity at 65 cm and uncorrected near acuity at 40 cm. Assessment covered distance acuity, refractive accuracy, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, dysphotopsia, spectacle independence and the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25. Models adjusted for baseline and operative-period differences, with propensity-score sensitivity analyses.Results At 12 months the sinusoidal design showed better intermediate acuity (0.09 (0.05) vs. 0.12 (0.05) logMAR; adjusted difference - 0.025, 95% CI - 0.037 to - 0.013) and near acuity (0.10 (0.06) vs. 0.16 (0.05) logMAR; -0.066, 95% CI - 0.080 to - 0.053; both P < 0.001). Propensity-weighted and doubly robust estimates were almost identical (near-acuity E-value 5.4). Refractive predictability was equivalent (83.5% vs. 84.7% within ± 0.50 D; P = 0.88); all eyes were within ± 1.00 D. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, defocus area-under-the-curve, contrast sensitivity at most tested spatial frequencies, halo, glare and questionnaire outcomes also favoured the sinusoidal design; distance-acuity differences were clinically negligible.Conclusions Both designs achieved excellent distance vision and refractive predictability. The sinusoidal design was associated with better intermediate and near function across several independent measures, and the estimates were robust to propensity-score weighting. Because allocation was not randomised and the groups differed at baseline, residual confounding cannot be excluded and prospective confirmation is required.
SN - 1471-2415
ER -