Advertisement

Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: AT LISA tri 839 MP

  • Peter Mojzis
  • David Pablo Piñero
  • Jorge L. Alió
Chapter
Part of the Essentials in Ophthalmology book series (ESSENTIALS)

Abstract

The great prevalence of presbyopia and the importance of near and intermediate vision in modern society have resulted in the development of techniques to compensate this refractive condition. Moreover, as has been reported, the loss of reading skills can reduce the quality of life of presbyopic patients.

The use of multifocal lenses can improve near and distance uncorrected visual acuity reducing the spectacle dependence. For this purpose, many designs have been developed by manufacturers of intraocular lenses (IOLs). The main types of multifocal IOLs available are refractive, diffractive, refractive–diffractive, and accommodative.

Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages, but in mean terms, all of them can improve near and distance uncorrected vision. However, IOLs are still far from be perfect, and collateral effects such as halos, glare, and loss of contrast sensitivity have been reported after their implantation. Moreover, the results achieved in intermediate distance vision are not satisfactory in a great number of cases. Therefore, the improvement in intermediate vision is nowadays one of the most important challenges in this field. In this sense, the achievement of an intermediate focus in IOLs could be interesting to solve this problem.

As will be seen along the chapter, the AT LISA tri is one of existing trifocal IOLs, and what is more important, it has shown unbeatable results in improving near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity in presbyopic patients.

Keywords

Contrast sensitivity Modulation transfer function Spherical aberration Corneal astigmatism Posterior capsule opacification 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Requirements

Peter Mojzis declares that he has no conflict of interest. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Richter-Mueksch S, Weghaupt H, Skorpik C, et al. Reading performance with a refractive multifocal and a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:1957–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Radner W, Obermayer W, Richter-Mueksch S, et al. The validity and reliability of short German sentences for measuring reading speed. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240:461–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hütz WW, Eckhardt HB, Röhrig B, et al. Reading ability with 3 multifocal intraocular lens models. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:2015–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alió JL, Radner W, Plaza-Puche AB, et al. Design of short Spanish sentences for measuring reading performance: Radner-Vissum test. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:638–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Toto L, Falconio G, Vecchiarino L, et al. Visual performance and biocompatibility of 2 multifocal diffractive IOLs: six-month comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1419–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alfonso JF, Puchades C, Fernández-Vega L, et al. Visual acuity comparison of 2 models of bifocal aspheric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:672–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Montés-Micó R, Alió JL. Distance and near contrast sensitivity function after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:703–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohnen T, Allen D, Boureau C, et al. European multicenter study of the AcrySof ReSTOR apodized diffractive intraocular lens. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohnen T, Nuijts R, Levy P, et al. Visual function after bilateral implantation of apodized diffractive aspheric multifocal intraocular lenses with a +3.0 D addition. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:2062–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lesieur G. Outcomes after implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2012;35:338–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Voskresenskaya A, Pozdeyeva N, Pashtaev N, et al. Initial results of trifocal diffractive IOL implantation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248:1299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cochener B, Vryghem J, Rozot P, et al. Visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of a fully diffractive trifocal lens. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1421–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheppard AL, Shah S, Bhatt U, Bhogal G, Wolffsohn JS. Visual outcomes and subjective experience after bilateral implantation of a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;39(3):343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mojzis P, Peña-García P, Liehneova I, Ziak P, Alió JL. Outcomes of a new diffractive trifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(1):60–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mojzis P, Majerova K, Hrckova L, Piñero DP. Implantation of a diffractive trifocal intraocular lens: one-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(8): 1623–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Mojzis
    • 1
  • David Pablo Piñero
    • 2
  • Jorge L. Alió
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyPremium Clinic TepliceTepliceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Grupo de Óptica y Percepción Visual (GOPV), Department of Optics, Pharmacology and AnatomyUniversity of AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  3. 3.Research & Development Department and Department of Cornea, Cataract, and Refractive SurgeryVISSUM Corporation and Miguel Hernández UniversityAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations