Materials and Methods: This study included 98 eyes of 65 patients implanted with sinusoidal vision trifocal IOL and 79 eyes of 53 patients implanted with monofocal EDOF IOL. The following were evaluated; Uncorrected and corrected distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (UIVA, CIVA), near visual acuity (UNVA, CNVA), halo, glare, ocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity, capsule opacification. In addition, The National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) results were analysed.

Results: Three months postoperatively, there were no differences between the groups in terms of UDVA and UIVA (respectively, p=0.780 and p=0.317). Near vision was found to be better for the Trinova group than for the Eyhance group (p<0.001). Eyhance IOL provided better contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies than Trinova IOL (p<0,001). Halo perception was reported for only six eyes, all of which were in the Trinova group (6.9%). Glare perception was found to be more common in the Trinova group (15 eyes (17.2%)), than in the Eyhance group (four eyes (5.3%)). With regard to the composite score of NEI-VFQ 25, no significant difference was found between the groups (p=0.201). In the analyses of subgroups, the near activities score was higher in the Trinova group, but distance activities and driving scores were higher in the Eyhance group (p<0,05).

Conclusion: Both lenses have been shown to have satisfactory levels of distance and intermediate vision, with high levels of patient satisfaction. Considering their advantages over each other, IOL preferences should be made according to the priorities of the patients. Keywords : Cataract, contrast sensitivity, glare, multifocal intraocular lenses