Poyales Galán, FranciscoGarzón Jiménez, Nuria2023-06-172023-06-172018-09-271873-450210.1016/j.jcrs.2018.09.025https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/12955Submitted: December 15, 2017|Final revision submitted: August 27, 2018|Accepted: September 27, 2018Purpose: To evaluate visual outcomes and satisfaction after implantation of 2 trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs): a spherical IOL and a toric IOL. Setting: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. Design: Prospective, controlled clinical trial. Methods: Patients (>50 years) were implanted bilaterally with either a trifocal spherical hydrophilic IOL (FineVision POD F) if corneal astigmatism was 1.0 diopter (D) or less, or with a trifocal toric hydrophilic IOL (FineVision POD FT) if astigmatism was more than 1.0 D. Outcomes analyzed 3 months after surgery included monocular and binocular visual acuities at distance, near, and intermediate, both uncorrected and corrected. Defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction were also assessed. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between groups in monocular uncorrected distance (UDVA) (P = .38), monocular corrected distance (CDVA) (P = .22), or distance-corrected intermediate (DCIVA) (P = .95) visual acuities; however, the distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was slightly better in the spherical IOL group (P = .008). The UDVA was 20/25 or better in 89% of eyes in the spherical IOL group and 93% in the toric IOL group. The DCIVA was 20/32 or better in 92% of eyes in the spherical IOL group and 93% in the toric IOL group at 80 cm (Radner Vissum chart), and 20/32 or better in 100% of eyes in both groups at 63 cm (Colenbrander chart). The DCNVA (Radner chart) was 20/32 or better in 89% of eyes in the spherical IOL group and 90% of eyes in the toric IOL group. There was no difference between the groups in contrast sensitivity, defocus curves, cylinder, or satisfaction results. Conclusion: Patients had significant improvement in visual acuity and gained functional uncorrected visual acuity across all distances in both groups. Satisfaction was high with both IOLs.engAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Españajournal articlehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.09.025https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0886335018308745?via%3Dihubopen access617.7-089.243681.73617.751Intraocular lenstoric lensIOLsVisual outcomesVisual acuityLentes de contactoOptometríaMateriales ópticos3311.11 Instrumentos ópticos2209.15 Optometría2209.14 Propiedad ópticas de los sólidos