Table 4. Summary of outcomes included in the review.
| Study author | Others | Bifocal |
Trifocal |
Bifocals better | Trifocals better | ||||||
| ReSTOR | Lentis Mplus | TECNIS | AT LISA | LISA 839 | PanOptix | Symfony | FineVision | ||||
| Cochener et al (2012)[7] | Accommodative | a | a | R ↑UNVA, ↑UDVA, and ↑SI | |||||||
| Alfonso et al (2012)[3] | a | a | IV<N, F similarly, Photopic CS; LM>R at high SF | ||||||||
| Alió et al (2011) [1] | a | a | IV, CS LM>R whereas, NVR>LM | ||||||||
| Alió et al (2013)[9] | a | a | IV and CS L.M ↑>Lisa, while Lisa ↑ in D, NV | ||||||||
| van der Linden et al (2012)[55] | a | a | R↑had higher patient satisfaction | ||||||||
| Marques et al (2015)[42] | a | a | Excellent predictability and optical performance in both lenses | ||||||||
| Domínguez-Vicent et al (2016)[43] | a | a | a | MTF (sagittal tangential Strehl ratio); defocus: trifocal showed 3 (F, I, N); MW: 2 (F, N) mean peaks respectively | |||||||
| Jonker et al (2015)[30] | a | a | DC: Id in -2, -3.5, -4 D | DC: Sd in -1 D; Id in 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, -0.5, -1.5, -2.5, -3 D; CS: Id in 3, 6, 12 c/d | |||||||
| Gundersen et al (2016)[41] | a | a | DC: Id in 0.5 D | DC: Sd in 2, -1.5 D; Id in 1.5, 1, 0, -0.5, -1, -2, -2.5, -3, -3.5, -4 D | |||||||
| Cochener et al (2016)[34] | a | a | DC: Id in 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 D CS: Id in 1.5, 3 c/d |
DC: Sd in -1, -1.5, -2, -2.5 D; Id in 0, -0.5, -3, -3.5 D CS: Id in 6, 12 c/d | |||||||
| Bilbao-Calabuig et al (2016)[44] | a | a | DC: Sd in -1.5, -2, -2.5, -3, -3.5 D; Id in 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5, 0, -0.5, -1 D; CS: Sd in 3 c/d; Id in 1.5, 6, 12, 18 c/d | ||||||||
| Plaza-Puche et al (2016)[38] | a | a | a | a | a | DC: Sd in -1, -1.5, -2, -2.5, -3, -3.5, -4 D; Id in 1, 0.5, 0, -0.5 D | |||||
| Mojzis et al (2014)[39] | a | a | DC: Sd in -3.5, -4 D; Id in 1, 0.5, -3 D, CS: Id in 3 c/d | DC: Sd in -1, -1.5 D; Id in 0, -0.5, -2, -2.5 D, CS: Id in 6, 12, 18 c/d | |||||||
| Lubiński et al (2020)[31] | a | a | DC: Sd in 1.5, 0.5, -0.5, -1.0, -2.0, -2.5, -3.0, -3.5 and -4.0 D; Id in VFQ-25 in NV | ||||||||
| Monaco et al (2017)[40] | a | a | DC: Sd in 1.5 D, and from -2.5 to -4.0 D | ||||||||
| Mencucci et al (2018)[45] | a | a | a | CS: Id in Photopic, Sd in Mesopic (S>L at the SF of 18 cpd); the best outcomes in 60 cm: P, in 80 cm: S | |||||||
| Cochener et al (2018)[35] | a | a | a | Id in UDVA, Sd in UNVA (F and P>S), micromonovision gave; UIVA, UNVA>non-micromonovision | |||||||
| Esteve-Taboada et al (2015)[46] | a | a | a | F: ↑far vision; S: ↑intermediate vision; L839: ↑near vision | |||||||
| Ruiz-Mesa et al (2018)[48] | a | a | a | F and P>S in NVA | |||||||
| Ruiz-Mesa et al (2017)[47] | a | a | Best corrected | ||||||||
| Sudhir et al (2019)[49] | a | a | P>S in intermediate focal point of 60 cm (arms-length), a more natural and comfortable | ||||||||
| de Medeiros et al (2017)[33] | a | a | a | S, T>P for I, FVA and photopic CS in low sf, P>S, T for UIVA at 60 cm and for UNVA at 40 cm | |||||||
| Pedrotti et al (2016)[50] | a | a | The mesopic CS of S>L, the S compensates Ch, SA in large pupil | ||||||||
| Chang et al (2016)[51] | a | clinical utility aberrations for EDOF and presbyopia | |||||||||
| Eppig et al (2015)[52] | Accommodative M | mesopic CS aspheric IOL>photopic, due to the correction of SA at large pupil diameters | |||||||||
| Crnej et al (2014)[53] | Accommodative M | CS and SA at 12 cycles/degree: significantly lower and better, capsulorhexis size effects | |||||||||
| Kretz et al (2015)[54] | a | Functional vision and stereopsis outcome binocular>monocular for all distances | |||||||||
| Kohnen et al (2017)[32] | a | P is quadrifocal, good VA at all distances; (logMAR>0.1), best VA at 60 cm | |||||||||
SI: Spectacle independence; UCNVA: Uncorrected near visual acuity; UCIVA: Uncorrected intermediate visual acuity; ↑: Higher; VP: Visual performance; DC: Defocus curve in 100%; CS: Contrast sensitivity; I: Intermediate; F: Far; N: Near; SF: Spatial frequency; SA: Spherical aberrations; IOHOA: Internal and ocular higher-order aberration; Sd: Statistically significant differences; Id: Insignificant differences; L: Zeiss AT LISA Tri; P: AcrySof IQ PanOptix (Alcon Laboratories, Inc); R: ReSTOR multifocal IOLs (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) with +2.50 and +3.00 diopters, EDOF IOLs; S: TECNIS Symfony (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Abbott Park, IL); MW: Mini well (SIFI, Catania, Italy); LMp: Oculentis GmbH-Lentis Mplus LS-312; F: FineVision Micro F (PhysIOL SA, Liège, Belgium). aImplanted lens.