Visual and refractive results of multifocal intraocular lenses

One hundred forty-nine selected patients with bilateral multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) were evaluated and compared retrospectively with 131 patients with bilateral monofocal IOLs. Seventy-eight percent of multifocal cases and 74.8% of monofocal cases had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Fifty-four percent of multifocal cases had near uncorrected visions of J1 to J3. Eighteen percent had best-corrected near vision of J4 or worse. Sixty-three percent of multifocal cases versus 4% of monofocal cases needed no spectacle correction. Multifocal cases reported significantly more visual side effects (flare, glare, and halos). The 10% of cases with poor satisfaction (rating vision as fair-to-poor) had significantly (P = 0.03) more postoperative astigmatism (1.1 prism diopters [D] versus 0.74 D) compared with satisfied (good-to-excellent) cases. Patients who were dissatisfied reported more need for corrective lenses but not more side effects. A greater decrease in contrast sensitivity at low contrast levels was detected among multifocal cases. Both groups had similar contrast sensitivity at 96% and 50% contrast, but at 11% contrast, multifocal cases averaged a loss of 3.45 Snellen lines (to 20/48.2) compared with 2.65 lines (to 20/36) for monofocal cases.     

Binocular function after bilateral implantation of monofocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To evaluate binocular function after bilateral implantation of a refractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: Contrast sensitivity, glare, depth discrimination, and distance and near visual acuity were examined in 21 patients with a multifocal IOL and 15 patients with a monofocal IOL. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in binocular distance visual acuity between the 2 groups. In near visual acuity with distance correction, the multifocal group had a significant advantage in monocular and binocular vision (P < .05). High contrast with Regan contrast letter acuity charts did not differ significantly between the groups. However, at a contrast of 11%, sensitivity was significantly lower monocularly in the multifocal group. Contrast sensitivity in this group was not significantly lower binocularly. The brightness acuity tester revealed no between-group difference in glare. With the Titmus stereotest, depth discrimination was significantly better with the multifocal IOL with distance correction. CONCLUSION: Bilateral implantation of a refractive multifocal IOL provided good binocular function and alleviated the well-known disadvantage of reduced contrast sensitivity at low contrast levels.     

Correction of presbyopia with refractive multifocal phakic intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of and specify the conditions required for implantation of an anterior chamber multifocal phakic intraocular lens (IOL) to correct presbyopia. SETTING: Monticelli Clinic, Marseilles, France. METHOD: Fifty-five eyes of 33 patients (21 women, 12 men) had implantation of a foldable anterior chamber multifocal phakic IOL. The initial refraction was between -5.00 diopters (D) and +5.00 D. The IOL had an addition of +2.50 D. An uncorrected distance acuity of 0.6 or better (decimal scale) and an uncorrected near acuity (Parinaud scale) of 3 or better (Parinaud 2 approximately equal to Jaeger 1) was considered a successful postoperative result. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 42.6 weeks +/- 18 (SD). Postoperatively, the mean refraction was -0.12 +/- 0.51 D, the mean decimal uncorrected distance acuity was 0.78 +/- 0.20, and the mean Parinaud uncorrected near acuity was 2.3 +/- 0.6. Eighty-four percent of eyes achieved an uncorrected distance acuity of 0.60 or better and an uncorrected near acuity of Parinaud 3 or better. The IOL was explanted in 4 eyes for different, but essentially optical, reasons. No significant anatomic complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of an anterior chamber multifocal phakic IOL to correct presbyopia was effective and gave good predictability. The procedure is reversible in cases of patient intolerance to the IOL, unwanted optical phenomena, or complications. Strict inclusion criteria should be used for patient selection.     

Array人工晶状体眼调制传递函数和对比敏感度与瞳孔大小的关系

目的研究Array多焦点人工晶状体（SN-40N，AMO）术后调制传递函数（modulation transfer function，MTF）及对比敏感度（contrast sensitivity，CS）与瞳孔直径之间的关系。方法随访最近2年于我科行Array人工晶状体植入术的患者共124例（196眼），按严格的纳入标准选取研究对象，得到38例（57眼）。用iTrace视觉功能分析仪测量MTF及瞳孔直径，以iTrace3．1软件分析不同瞳孔直径下的MTF。用CGT-1000对比度眩光测试仪测量患者的对比敏感度及眩光敏感度,将患者按瞳孔直径≤3．5mm及〉3．5mm分为两组,比较两组患者的裸眼视力、最佳矫正视力、最佳矫正远视力下的近视力、波前像差及对比敏感度函数（contrast sensitivity function，CSF）。结果当瞳孔直径在2．0-3．5mm时，MTF随瞳孔增大而减小（P=0．000-0．025）；当瞳孔直径〉3．5mm时，MTF基本不变（P〉0．05）。瞳孔直径〉3．5mm组在最佳矫正远视力下有着更好的近视力（P=0．049），球差Z12较大（P=0．006），两组患者之间的CSF差异没有统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论Array人工晶状体的调制传递函数及最佳矫正远视力下的近视力受到瞳孔大小的影响,但是.没有发现对比敏感度与瞳孔直径之间存在相关性。     

Distance and near contrast sensitivity function after multifocal intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE: To evaluate contrast sensitivity at distance and near after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. SETTING: Ophthalmologic Institute of Alicante, University Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain. METHODS: Contrast sensitivity was measured with the Stereo Optical Functional Acuity Contrast Test at distance and near in 21 patients with a refractive multifocal IOL (Array SA-40N, AMO). A control group with a monofocal IOL (SI-40NB, AMO) was also studied to allow comparison of results. Contrast sensitivity was measured 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after IOL implantation. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant greater reduction in contrast sensitivity at distance at all spatial frequencies in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group during the first month. At 3 months, contrast sensitivity at 12 and 18 cycles per deg remained reduced in the multifocal group; contrast sensitivity at the other frequencies did not differ from that in the monofocal group (P > 0.1). At 6, 12, and 18 months, contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies was not significantly different between groups (P > 0.1). There was a statistically significant greater reduction in near contrast sensitivity in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group at all spatial frequencies during the first and third month after surgery (P <.01). No statistically significant differences were found between groups after 6 months (P > 0.1). Contrast sensitivity at distance and near in the multifocal group improved over time (P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Array IOL provided contrast sensitivity at distance comparable to that obtained with the monofocal IOL between 3 and 6 months after implantation. Near contrast sensitivity improved over time but was always lower than at distance and in the monofocal near-corrected patients, which is acceptable to avoid near visual function degradation.     

Visual performance with multifocal intraocular lenses: mesopic contrast sensitivity under distance and near conditions

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate distance and near visual performance under bright (photopic) and dim (mesopic) conditions in patients who had undergone uncomplicated cataract extraction with multifocal or monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, masked, comparative, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients after zonal-progressive multifocal IOL implantation (Allergan Medical Optics Array SA-40N) and 32 eyes of 32 age-matched patients after monofocal IOL implantation (Allergan Medical Optics SI-40NB). INTERVENTION: All eyes underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At 18 months after surgery, the monocular contrast sensitivity (CS) function was measured with sinusoidal grating charts at distance and near, at one photopic luminance level and 2 mesopic luminance levels (85, 5, and 2.5 candelas per square meter). RESULTS: Under bright conditions, CS at distance in the multifocal group was not statistically different (P>0.01) from that in the monofocal group at any tested grating spatial frequency (1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree [cpd]). At low luminances, distance CS for the multifocal group was worse than that for the monofocal group at the highest test spatial frequencies (12 and 18 cpd; P<0.01). At near, photopic CS in the multifocal group was lower than at distance; patients with only a monofocal distance correction, however, could not detect the test gratings, even at the highest available contrast. With optimal near spectacle additions (i.e., using the distance correction of the multifocal IOL), there were no significant differences between the photopic near CS values for the multifocal and monofocal groups. When the luminance was decreased, near CS at all spatial frequencies was reduced in both groups. Contrast sensitivity in the near-corrected, multifocal group was significantly worse than in the near-corrected, monofocal group at high spatial frequencies (12 and 18 cpd). CONCLUSIONS: This work supports the findings of earlier authors that the Array multifocal IOL, with its center-distance design, is distance biased. Distance CS is within normal limits under bright photopic conditions but shows deficits at higher spatial frequencies (more than approximately 12 cpd) under dim mesopic conditions. Near CS obtained with the multifocal IOL is below that which can be achieved by an appropriate monofocal near correction, for all spatial frequencies and illumination conditions.     

非球面多焦点人工晶状体植入术后视功能观察

目的 评价白内障超声乳化摘除联合非球面衍射型多焦点人工晶状体（MIOL）植入术后患者的视觉质量及拟调节力.方法 前瞻性病例系列研究.选取自愿进行超声乳化联合人工晶状体植入术的白内障患者35例（50眼）,随机分成2组：SN6AD3组17例（25眼）,植入非球面MIOL（AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD3） SN60D3组18例（25眼）,植入MIOL（AcrySof ReSTOR SN60D3）.术后3个月时,检查裸眼及矫正远视力、裸眼及最佳矫正远视力下的近视力、波前像差、调制传递函数、拟调节力、对比敏感度,并问卷调查近阅读脱镜率.对两组术后视力及近阅读脱镜率的比较采用x2检验,波前像差、调制传递函数、拟调节力、对比敏感度的比较采用独立样本t检验.结果 术后3个月,两组患者术后裸眼远视力、最佳矫正远视力、裸眼近视力、最佳矫正远视力下的近视力差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.波前像差：3 mm瞳孔直径时,SN6AD3组的总高阶像差小于SN60D3组,差异有统计学意义（t=2.842,P=0.007） 5 mm瞳孔直径时,SN6AD3组的球面像差Zernike C12、4阶高阶像羞及总高阶像差均小于SN60D3组（P＜0.05）.调制传递函数：在3 mm和5 mm瞳孔直径下,SN6AD3组在各空间频率（5、10、15、20、25、30 c/d）的调制传递函数值均大于SN60D3组,除空间频率为5 c/d时两组差异无统计学意义（t=1.307,P=0.192）外,其余空间频率差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.视近拟调节力：SN6AD3组为（0.925±0.549）D,SN60D3组为（0.964±0.582）D,差异无统计学意义（t=0.217,P＞0.05）.对比敏感度：无眩光时,在各空间频率（3、6、12、18 c/d）下,SN6AD3组的对比敏感度均大于SN60D3组（P＜0.05） 眩光时,SN6AD3组的对比敏感度亦大于SN60D3组,但仅在空间频率为3 c/d时差异有统计学意义（t=3.405,P＜0.01）.近阅读脱镜率：SN6AD3组为80%,SN60D3组为72%,两组差异无统计学意义（x2=0.439,P=0.508）.结论 ReSTOR衍射型非球面MIOL能提供良好的远、近视力和拟调节幅度,非球面设计的MIOL对比敏感度较球面设计的MIOL有明显提高.     

Halo size under distance and near conditions in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses

AIMS: To calculate the diameter of halos perceived by patients with multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to stimulate halos in patients with refractive multifocal IOLs in a clinical experiment. METHODS: Calculations were done to show the diameter of halos in the case of the bifocal intraocular lens. 24 patients with a refractive multifocal IOLs and five patients with a monofocal IOL were asked about their subjective observation of halos and were included in a clinical experiment using a computer program (Glare & Halo, FW Fitzke and C Lohmann, Tomey AG) which simulates a light source of 0.15 square degrees (sq deg) in order to stimulate and measure halos. Halo testing took place monoculary, under mesopic conditions through the distance and the near focus of the multifocal lens and through the focus of the monofocal lens. RESULTS: The halo diameter depends on the pupil diameter, the refractive power of the cornea, and distance focus of the multifocal IOL as well as the additional lens power for the near focus. 23 out of 24 patients with a refractive multifocal IOL described halos at night when looking at a bright light source. Only one patient was disturbed by the appearance of halos. Under test conditions, halos were detected in all patients with a refractive multifocal IOL. The halo area testing through the distance focus was 1.05 sq deg +/- 0.41, through the near focus 1.07 sq deg +/- 0.49 and in the monofocal lens 0.26 sq deg +/- 0.13. CONCLUSIONS: Under high contrast conditions halos can be stimulated in all patients with multifocal intraocular lenses. The halo size using the distance or the near focus is identical.     

多焦点人工晶状体眼对比敏感度的研究

目的观察多焦点人工晶状体植入术后对比敏感度的改变情况,并与单焦点人工晶状体植入者进行比较。方法我院住院的老年性白内障44例(60眼),随机分为两组,每组30眼,均行晶状体超声乳化吸出术。A组植入多焦点人工晶状体,B组植入单焦点人工晶状体。术后1天检查远、近视力,3月进行远、近视力及对比敏感度等视功能的检查,并问卷调查视物情况及视觉症状。结果A组具有与B组一样良好的非矫正远视力(分别为1.00±0.27和0.89±0.23,P>0.05),非矫正近视力A组明显优于B组(分别为0.86±0.27和0.45±0.14,P<0.05);两组患者对比敏感度在低、中空间频段均位于正常范围内,高空间频段则有部分病例稍下降,但两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。多数患者对手术效果满意,A组近距离作业满意度高于B组(85.71%3、4.78%、P<0.05);脱镜两组患者视觉症状均较少(10.00%、3.33%,P>0.05)。结论两种人工晶状体植入术后患者对比敏感度改变无差别,但多焦点人工晶状体植入术后近视力更好,减少了对近用镜的依赖,患者满意度高。     

区域折射型多焦点人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量误差分析

目的:分析区域折射型多焦点人工晶状体植入术后客观视觉质量检查误差。方法:选取2019-01/2020-06在中山大学中山眼科中心海南眼科医院行白内障超声乳化摘除术的白内障患者116例180眼进行回顾性分析。根据植入人工晶状体类型,将患者分为两组,单焦组(61例96眼)植入Aspira-aA,多焦组(55例84眼)植入LS-313 MF30。术后3mo检查患者裸眼远视力(UCDVA)、最佳矫正远视力(BCDVA)、裸眼中视力(UCIVA)和裸眼近视力(UCNVA),采用Itrace视觉质量分析仪进行客观视觉质量检查,分析指标包括：全眼高阶像差(HOAt)、眼内高阶像差(HOAi)、角膜高阶像差(HOAc)、球差、彗差、三叶草差、斯特列尔比(SR)、调制传递函数平均高度(MTF AvgHeight)和晶状体失调指数(DLI)。结果:术后3mo,两组UCDVA及BCDVA比较无差异(t=-0.789、-0.815,均P>0.05);多焦组的UCIVA和UCNVA明显优于单焦组,比较均有差异(t=1.971、3.215,均P<0.05)。术后3mo,两组HOAc和球差的比较均无差异...     

Wavefront measurements of diffractive and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses in an artificial eye

PURPOSE: To investigate whether wavefront measurements taken in eyes that have implanted multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) are reliable when creating laser refractive surgical treatments to remove residual refractive error from these eyes. METHODS: A specially designed fluid-filled model eye holding a multifocal IOL was refracted using a commercial wavefront eye refractor. The wavefront findings were then compared to the expected refractive error. The fluid-filled model was designed to match the optical characteristics of a human eye and to hold the IOL at the same distance from the cornea as in a human eye. Lenses tested were AMO Tecnis ZM900 series (diffractive design, +25.00 D, +4.00 D add), AMO ReZoom NXG1 series (refractive design, 25.00 D, +4.00 D add), and AMO 811E (diffractive with aspheric design 25.00 D, +4.00 add). The visible pupil diameter was 5.75 mm. RESULTS: Diffractive bifocal IOLs were found to create spot doubling in the Shack-Hartmann sensor image as expected from theoretical considerations. However, the residual sphere power and cylinder power reported were those expected. In addition, the higher order aberrations reported were reasonable in light of expected results. Refractive multifocal IOLs were found to create distorted Shack-Hartmann images as expected. The residual sphere power and cylinder power reported were not those expected nor were the higher order aberrations. In addition, the higher order values were sensitive to the position of the eye with respect to the refractor. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront measurements from eyes with diffractive IOLs can be used, with caution, to plan laser refractive treatments. Wavefront measurements from eyes with refractive multifocal IOLs should not be used to plan post-implant laser refractive correction.     

Depth of focus in eyes with diffractive bifocal and refractive multifocal intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To evaluate monocular and binocular depth of focus in eyes with different multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs) systems. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: In this comparative interventional study, binocular implantation of multifocal IOLs was performed in 3 groups. In the first group, 26 eyes of 13 patients received asymmetric Acri.Twin (Acri.Tec) IOLs, a near-weighted 733D in 1 eye and a distance-weighted 737D in the fellow eye. In the second group, 26 eyes of 13 patients received a diffractive 811E IOL (Pharmacia). In the third group, 26 eyes of 13 patients received a refractive Array IOL (AMO). The visual acuity was tested monocularly and binocularly starting at 6 m in 0.50 diopter (D) defocusing steps. RESULTS: Distance visual acuity was best in eyes with the distance-dominated 737D IOL; eyes with the other IOLs had comparable results. Binocular distance visual acuity was comparable between the Acri.Twin group and the 811E group. The Acri.Twin group had better distance visual acuity than the Array group (P< or =.048). Near visual acuity was best in eyes with the near-weighted 733D, followed by the 737D and the 811E. Patients with Array IOLs had worse visual acuities at reading distance (between 33 cm and 40 cm) (P< or =.001). Patients with diffractive bifocal IOLs had better results than patients with refractive multifocal IOLs at reading distance (P< or =.018). CONCLUSION: The diffractive IOLs performed better than refractive IOLs. Asymmetric-weighted IOLs provided better binocular depth of field.     

Compared optical performances of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses (contrast sensitivity and dynamic visual acuity)

The functional results (contrast sensitivity and dynamic visual acuity) of 19 multifocal (3M design) and 14 all polymethylmethacrylate biconvex monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs), 6 mm in optical diameter were compared. Best corrected visual acuity was > or = 8/10 (Monoyer chart) Parinaud 2 in all cases. Major differences of functional performance in favour of monofocal IOLs were found outside standard conditions of vision (low contrast and illumination levels). A significant difference in contrast sensitivity was found for each spatial frequency in favour of multifocal IOLs (0.0016 < p < 0.05). Mesopic vision was statistically higher in the monofocal IOL group (p = 0.0015). Moreover, dynamic visual acuity allowed accurate evaluation of the difference in performance between these two models of implant. In view of these results multifocal IOLs should be reserved for patients with normal psychosensitive adaptation; an ocular pathology that could alter contrast sensitivity or mesopic vision is a contraindication for multifocal IOLs.     

Posterior capsular opacification evaluation through contrast sensitivity defocus curves with two multifocal intraocular lenses of similar material

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - To assess the degree of posterior capsular opacification (PCO) and its influence on contrast sensitivity defocus curve (CSDC)...     

Differences in contrast sensitivity between monofocal,multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses: long‐term results

Background: To evaluate long‐term contrast sensitivity (CS) and visual acuity following implantation of monofocal, accommodating, refractive and diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients with unilateral cataract Methods: In this prospective non‐randomized clinical trial, 87 patients with unilateral cataract were enrolled in four groups for phacoemulsification and IOL implantation in Ophthalmology Department of Goztepe Training and Research Hospital. Twenty‐four patients had monofocal (Alcon Acrysof; group 1), 21 patients accommodating (Human Optics 1CU; group 2), 22 patients diffractive multifocal (Tecnis ZM900; group 3) and 20 patients refractive multifocal (AMO Rezoom; group 4) IOL implantations. Ages of patients were between 40 and 70. Parameters analysed at the 18th postoperative month were subjective refractions, monocular and binocular distance and near photopic CSs, visual acuities. Results: Near visual acuities were statistically better in group 3 than the other groups (P < 0.05). At low spatial frequencies, mean monocular distance CSs of group 1 and mean monocular near CSs of groups 1 and 2 were statistically higher than those of group 4 (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between binocular CSs of group 4 and the other groups at low spatial frequencies. At high spatial frequencies, monocular and binocular CSs of groups 1 and 2 were statistically higher than those of groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.05). Near CSs was better in group 3 than group 4. Conclusions: In patients with unilateral cataract, monofocal, accommodating and partially diffractive multifocal IOL provided higher CS scores when compared with refractive multifocal IOL and in multifocal IOL groups binocular CSs were better than monocular CSs when compared with other groups.