Comparison of Patient Outcomes following Implantation of Trifocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 3

Summary of aberrations.

Study	EDOF	Trifocal	Device	Results
Cochener et al. 2018 [30]	TECNIS Symfony	AcrySof IQ PanOptix FineVision Micro F	iTrace	With a 4.0 mm PD, there was no significant difference in HOAs, coma, tilt, and spherical aberrations between groups.
Monaco et al. 2017 [31]	TECNIS Symfony	AcrySof IQ PanOptix	OPD-Scan II	Intraocular aberrations: (i) With a 3.0 mm PD, primary spherical aberration was significantly higher with the EDOF IOL than with the trifocal IOL.; (ii) With a 5.0 mm PD, the RMS of HOAs was significantly higher with the EDOF IOL than with the trifocal IOL. Primary spherical aberration was also significantly higher with the EDOF IOL than with the trifocal IOL; Total aberrations: (i) With a 3.0 mm PD, total aberrations with the EDOF IOL and the trifocal did not differ statistically.; (ii) With a 5.0 mm PD, the RMS of LOAs, HOAs, and coma was higher in the EDOF group than in the trifocal group. Primary spherical aberration was higher in the EDOF group than in the trifocal group. There were no statistically significant differences in Strehl ratios between groups.
Ruiz-Mesa et al. 2018 [35]	TECNIS Symfony	AcrySof IQ PanOptix	iTrace	With a 3.0 mm PD, there was no significant difference in RMS of HOA between groups.
Singh et al. 2019 [38]	TECNIS Symfony	FineVision Micro F	OPD-Scan II	There was no significant difference in Strehl ratios of PSF between groups with both 3.0 mm and 5.0 mm PD.
Lin et al. 2019 [41]	TECNIS Symfony	AT LISA tri 839MP	OPD-scan III	There was no significant difference in total, tilt, high, coma, trefoil, and spherical aberrations between groups with 3.0 mm, 4.0 mm, and 5.0 mm PDs.

PD, pupil diameter; RMS, root mean square; HOAs, higher order aberrations; LOAs, lower order aberrations; PSF, point-spread function; IOL, intraocular lens; EDOF, extended depth of focus