Purpose
To determine how patient satisfaction, visual disturbances, and spectacle independence compare between an FDA approved trifocal lens and other multifocal lenses using a validated patient-reported outcome instrument.

Methods
We administered a questionnaire instrument in 60 patients who underwent bilateral cataract surgery with the Panoptix trifocal implant at least 2 months previously. Patients with significant ocular pathology, PCO, or with residual refractive error of ≥ 0.5 D of sphere or 0.75 D of cylinder were excluded. Questions explored satisfaction, need for glasses for any activity, and incidence and severity of glare and haloes in Panoptix patients. These responses were compared to responses to the same questionnaire among patients who had mini-monovision with 2.5-add multifocal, mixed 2.5- and 3.0-add multifocals, and patients with bilateral 3.0-add multifocal lenses.

Results
Thirty-six patients had Panoptix, 102 had ActiveFocus 2.5 mini-monovision, & 89 had paired ReSTOR 2.5 and 3.0 IOLs. Full spectacle independence was seen in 83%, 27%, and 31%, respectively (P<0.0001). Top box satisfaction was in 83%, 75%, and 74% (P<0.32, NS). “Very satisfied” or “satisfied” was reported in 97%, 93%, and 92% (P<0.38, NS). Glare and haloes were reported “not at all” or “just a little” by 72%, 74%, and 71%, respectively (P<0.82, NS). Among patients requiring glasses for any activity, Panoptix patients required them only for reading, while patients with the other lenses required them for reading, driving, TV, and sports/hobbies (P<0.05).

Conclusion
Panopitix gives a highly significant improvement in spectacle independence relative to earlier multifocals. Only reading required spectacles among Panoptix patients, whereas other IOLs required spectacles for more activities. Satisfaction is higher with Panoptix but not significantly. Glare and haloes are comparable to previous generation lenses.