Residual Astigmatism Threshold and Patient Satisfaction with Bifocal, Trifocal and Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses (IOLs)

Purpose: To compare the impact of induced astigmatism with four different types of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). Method: Prospective, comparative, interventional, mono-centered study, including 80 eyes of patients with implantation of four different MIOLs: AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D (20 eyes), AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D (20 eyes), AcrySof Panoptix (20 eyes) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), and Tecnis Symfony ZRX00 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, USA) (20 eyes). Patients were followed up for 3 months after surgery. Major parameters were uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, subjective refraction and patient satisfaction. Results: Differences between IOLs with regard to the impact of the cylinder sign and axis on visual acuity and patient satisfaction were not significant. With mild added negative cylinder, AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D and Tecnis Symfony IOLs maintained the baseline visual acuity, while it was mildly reduced with AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D and Panoptix IOLs. With moderate induced cylinder, the Tecnis Symfony IOL maintained good visual acuity and patient associated satisfaction. Panoptix IOL was the IOL most affected by the induced astigmatism with regard to dissatisfaction and visual acuity. The highest tolerance to the astigmatic distortion and blurriness induced with a −1.50 D cylinder was obtained with the Tecnis Symfony IOL. Tecnis Symfony IOL showed less dissatisfaction and less reduction of visual acuity than the other MIOLs. Conclusion: Simulated residual cylinders after the implantation of the Tecnis Symfony IOL up to 1.0 D have a very mild and not clinically relevant impact on visual acuity or patient satisfaction. The ERV IOL showed a better tolerance to unexpected postoperative residual errors than diffractive bifocal and trifocal IOLs.