1
Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) vs. Trifocal for Intraocular Lens (IOL) Implantation
The Name of the Student The Name of Professor
The Name of the Institute
The Date 2
Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) vs. Trifocal for Intraocular Lens (IOL) Implantation
Summary of the primary and secondary outcomes
The analysis of multiple publications reveals that trifocal IOL has a superior effect to EDOF IOL in terms of postoperative refraction and visual acuity. Trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in postoperative sphere (P = 0.01) and spherical equivalent (P = 0.003) compared to EDOF IOL. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in the postoperative cylinder (P = 0.41) or postoperative astigmatism between the two groups. Trifocal IOL reported significantly superior postoperative UNVA (P <0.00001) and DCNVA (P = 0.002).
Conversely, the EDOF IOL group reported significantly improved postoperative CDVA (P = 0.04), although no significant difference was found in postoperative UDVA (P = 0.83). Intermediate visual acuity was not statistically different between the groups, particularly UIVA (P = 0.97) or DCIVA (P = 0.39). In terms of the between-study heterogeneity, it was high for all the outcomes (I2 >75%) except postoperative cylinder (D), which was deemed to have a low (I2 =
0%) level of heterogeneity respectively based on the assessment. In addition, the EDOF and trifocal IOL were comparable in terms of postoperative mesopic UDVA, monocular and binocular distance visual acuity, mesopic UIVA, monocular intermediate visual acuity, visual acuity at preferred intermediate reading distance, as well as mesopic UNVA, monocular and binocular near visual acuity, and visual acuity at preferred near reading distance.
Further to the aforementioned outcomes, both groups were assessed in terms of postoperative defocus curves, intraocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and QoV questionnaire
score. Trifocal IOLs outperformed the EDOF IOLs at the near vision in defocus curve whereas, at the intermediate vision, the EDOF group had a better performance compared to the trifocal group. Ocular aberration and contrast sensitivity were reported to have no significant difference between the groups. However, few studies significantly favored the trifocal group over the EDOF group in ocular aberration and others reported EDOF to have significantly superior contrast sensitivity than trifocal IOL. Finally, the trifocal IOL group had a statistically favorable QoV questionnaire score over the EDOF IOL group (P = 0.03).
Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) vs. Trifocal for Intraocular Lens (IOL) Implantation
The Name of the Student The Name of Professor
The Name of the Institute
The Date 2
Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) vs. Trifocal for Intraocular Lens (IOL) Implantation
Summary of the primary and secondary outcomes
The analysis of multiple publications reveals that trifocal IOL has a superior effect to EDOF IOL in terms of postoperative refraction and visual acuity. Trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in postoperative sphere (P = 0.01) and spherical equivalent (P = 0.003) compared to EDOF IOL. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in the postoperative cylinder (P = 0.41) or postoperative astigmatism between the two groups. Trifocal IOL reported significantly superior postoperative UNVA (P <0.00001) and DCNVA (P = 0.002).
Conversely, the EDOF IOL group reported significantly improved postoperative CDVA (P = 0.04), although no significant difference was found in postoperative UDVA (P = 0.83). Intermediate visual acuity was not statistically different between the groups, particularly UIVA (P = 0.97) or DCIVA (P = 0.39). In terms of the between-study heterogeneity, it was high for all the outcomes (I2 >75%) except postoperative cylinder (D), which was deemed to have a low (I2 =
0%) level of heterogeneity respectively based on the assessment. In addition, the EDOF and trifocal IOL were comparable in terms of postoperative mesopic UDVA, monocular and binocular distance visual acuity, mesopic UIVA, monocular intermediate visual acuity, visual acuity at preferred intermediate reading distance, as well as mesopic UNVA, monocular and binocular near visual acuity, and visual acuity at preferred near reading distance.
Further to the aforementioned outcomes, both groups were assessed in terms of postoperative defocus curves, intraocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity, and QoV questionnaire
score. Trifocal IOLs outperformed the EDOF IOLs at the near vision in defocus curve whereas, at the intermediate vision, the EDOF group had a better performance compared to the trifocal group. Ocular aberration and contrast sensitivity were reported to have no significant difference between the groups. However, few studies significantly favored the trifocal group over the EDOF group in ocular aberration and others reported EDOF to have significantly superior contrast sensitivity than trifocal IOL. Finally, the trifocal IOL group had a statistically favorable QoV questionnaire score over the EDOF IOL group (P = 0.03).
