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.     

Quality of vision with the Acri. Twin asymmetric diffractive bifocal intraocular lens system

PURPOSE: To assess the quality of vision in patients who had implantation of asymmetric Acri.Twin bifocal diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs) by evaluating distance and near visual acuities and photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity under monocular and binocular conditions. SETTING: Fernández-Vega Ophthalmological Institute, Oviedo, Spain. METHODS: The study comprised 343 consecutive patients who had bilateral implantation of the Acri.Twin system: a distance-weighted 737D IOL and a near-weighted 733D IOL. Monocular and binocular best corrected distance visual acuities, best distance corrected near visual acuity, and distance contrast sensitivity under photopic (85 cd/m(2)) and mesopic (5 cd/m(2)) conditions were determined. RESULTS: Eyes with the 737D IOL had better best corrected distance acuity than eyes with the 733D IOL (mean 0.036 +/- 0.061 logMAR versus 0.141 +/- 0.131 logMAR) (P<.0001). Eyes with the 733D IOL had better best distance corrected near acuity than eyes with the 737D IOL (mean 0.015 +/- 0.115 logMAR versus 0.059 +/- 0.091 logMAR) (P = .0027). Binocularly, the Acri.Twin system allowed good distance and near vision; the means were 0.031 +/- 0.059 logMAR and 0.005 +/- 0.024 logMAR, respectively. Contrast sensitivity with the Acri.Twin system was within normal limits under photopic and mesopic conditions. Contrast sensitivity was statistically significantly better with the Acri.Twin system, followed by the 737D IOL and the 733D IOL under both illumination levels. CONCLUSIONS: Asymmetric bilateral implantation of the Acri.Twin IOL gave good simultaneous distance and near vision with improved contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions. Differences between monocular and binocular visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were obtained because of the distance-/near-weighted light distribution of Acri.Twin IOLs.     

Secondary diffractive bifocal piggyback intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of implanting a bifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) using the piggyback technique to provide pseudoaccommodation. SETTING: Instituto Oftalmológico Fernández-Vega, Oviedo, Spain. METHODS: This prospective noncomparative case series included 6 pseudophakic emmetropic patients who had a monofocal IOL implanted in the capsular bag. All eyes had secondary piggyback Acri.Twin bifocal diffractive IOL (Acri.Tec) implantation in the ciliary sulcus to provide pseudoaccommodation. Contralateral implantation of 1 Acri.Twin near-weighted 733D IOL in the nondominant eye and 1 Acri.Twin distance-weighted 737D IOL in the dominant eye was performed. Monocular and binocular best distance-corrected visual acuity and distance-corrected near visual acuity were evaluated 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: The mean binocular best distance-corrected visual acuity and distance-corrected near visual acuity were -0.080 +/- 0.056 logMAR and -0.016 +/- 0.037 logMAR, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in binocular best distance-corrected acuity after the piggyback IOL implantation (P>.01). The differences between monocular and binocular visual acuity were the result of the distance- and near-weighted light distribution of the Acri.Twin IOLs. All IOLs were well centered with no tilt. Two eyes had pupillary capture of the optic. CONCLUSIONS: The Acri.Twin bifocal diffractive IOL implanted in the ciliary sulcus using the piggyback technique provided pseudoaccommodation in emmetropic pseudophakic eyes. Binocular implantation of these IOLs should be performed considering the differences in light distribution of the distance-weighted IOL and the near-weighted IOL models.     

Abbildungseigenschaften multifokaler Intraokularlinsen

BACKGROUND: Reduced contrast sensitivity, glare disability and insufficient bifocality are the main drawbacks of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOL). The bilateral implantation of diffractive IOL with an asymmetrical light distribution for distance and near focus is an alternative concept that aims to improve the contrast sensitivity and bifocality of conventional multifocal IOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The optical performance of monofocal (PhacoFlexII SI40) and multifocal IOL (Array SA40N; Acri.Twin 737D/733D) was quantitatively assessed in 18 healthy probands and qualitatively determined by digital photographic recording using an optical apparatus, the "physical eye", according to Reiner and Jacobi. Vision examination included standard tests of distance and near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and low contrast visual acuity testing under varying pupil size using a video acuity tester. RESULTS: Distance visual acuity was significantly superior with the SI40 and distant-dominant 737D compared to the SA40N and near-dominant 733D. At near, the 733D had the best performance. Contrast sensitivity was better with the 737D than the SA40N when both were compared with the SI40. No normal contrast sensitivity could be determined with the 733D because of the optical phenomenon of 'spurious resolution'. Variation in pupil size had less impact on contrast acuity with the Acri.Twin IOL compared to the SI40 and SA40N. Photographic testing revealed better edge contrast with the Acri.Twin than the SA40N. CONCLUSIONS: The optical performance of multifocal IOL correlates with the properties of physical light distribution. Differences in edge contrast may be discerned using photographic recording.     

Prospective study of the Acri.LISA bifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE: To assess the visual results after bilateral implantation of the bifocal Acri.LISA 366D intraocular lens (IOL) (Acri.Tec AG). SETTING: Fernández-Vega Ophthalmological Institute, Oviedo, Spain. METHODS: Eighty-one patients had bilateral implantation of the distance-dominant bifocal Acri.LISA 366D IOL in a prospective study. Monocular and binocular best corrected distance visual acuity and best distance-corrected near visual acuity, binocular best distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and distance contrast sensitivity under photopic (85 cd/m(2)) and mesopic (5 cd/m(2)) conditions were determined. RESULTS: At the 3-month postoperative visit, the mean binocular best corrected distance acuity was 0.048 +/- 0.111 logMAR and the mean binocular best distance-corrected near acuity, 0.012 +/- 0.0084 logMAR (both approximately 20/20). The mean binocular best distance-corrected intermediate acuity changed significantly as a function of the distance of the test, from 0.012 +/- 0.084 logMAR (approximately 20/20) at 33 cm to 0.265 +/- 0.099 logMAR (approximately 20/40) at 70 cm (P<.01). Contrast sensitivity was within normal limits under photopic and mesopic conditions. Binocular contrast sensitivity was statistically significantly better than monocular contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies under both illumination levels (P<.01). CONCLUSION: The Acri.LISA 366D IOL provided a satisfactory full range of vision; a high level of uncorrected and corrected distance, intermediate, and near acuity; and improved contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions.     

Symmetric bilateral implantation of a distance-dominant diffractive bifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE: To assess visual results after symmetrical bilateral implantation of a distance-dominant bifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Fernández-Vega Ophthalmological Institute, Oviedo, Spain. METHODS: Fifty patients had bilateral implantation of a distance-dominant diffractive bifocal 447D IOL (Acri.Tec GmbH) in a prospective study. Monocular and binocular best corrected distance visual acuities and best distance-corrected near visual acuity, binocular best distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity, and distance contrast sensitivity under photopic (85 cd/m(2)) and mesopic (5 cd/m(2)) conditions were determined. RESULTS: At the 6-month postoperative visit, the mean binocular best corrected distance acuity and best corrected distance near acuity were 0.02 +/- 0.04 logMAR and 0.04 +/- 0.03 logMAR, respectively. Binocular best corrected distance intermediate visual acuity worsened significantly as a function of the distance of the test: from 0.04 +/- 0.03 logMAR at 33 cm to 0.21 +/- 0.08 logMAR at 70 cm (P<.01). Contrast sensitivity was within normal limits under photopic and mesopic conditions. Binocular contrast sensitivity was statistically significantly better than monocular contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies under both illumination levels (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Bilateral implantation of the distance-dominant bifocal 447D IOL provided good simultaneous distance, near, and intermediate vision with improved contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions.     

Reading performance with a refractive multifocal and a diffractive bifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reading performance of a diffractive bifocal (811E, Pharmacia) and a refractive multifocal (SA40N, Allergan) intraocular lens (IOL) and compare it with that of a monofocal IOL (811C, Pharmacia) with respect to reading acuity, reading speed based on print size, maximum reading speed, reading distance, and critical print size. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: This study comprised 120 pseudophakic eyes of 70 patients; each IOL group had 40 eyes. The patients' age, sex, and best corrected logMAR visual acuity were recorded. Reading acuity and speed were tested monocularly. Reading acuity was determined in logRAD (ie, the reading equivalent of logMAR). Patients with bifocal and multifocal IOLs read with best distance correction and patients with a monofocal IOL, with an addition of +3.0 diopters. RESULTS: The age, mean spherical equivalent, cylinder, and best corrected distance visual acuity were comparable among the 3 groups. The mean logRAD reading acuity was 0.17 +/- 0.18 (SD) in the 811E group (94.0% of logMAR), 0.31 +/- 0.13 in the SA40N group (73.2% of logMAR), and 0.24 +/- 0.22 in the 811C group (94.1% of logMAR). The reading acuity in the SA40N group was statistically significantly lower than in the 811E and 811C groups. The best reading distance was 30 cm in the 811E group and 40 cm in the SA40N group. The mean maximum reading speeds in words per minute were comparable: 187.5 +/- 26.1 (811E), 171.0 +/- 21.1 (SA40N), and 179.4 +/- 21.6 (811C). The reading speed, which ranged from logRAD 0.7 to 0.3, and the critical print size in the SA40N group were significantly worse than in the 811E and 811C groups. The mean critical print size in the 811E group was significantly worse than in the 811C group. CONCLUSIONS: Reading performance was acceptable in the bifocal and multifocal IOL patients, with the diffractive bifocal IOL performing best in a standardized reading test setting.     

双焦点及散光双焦点人工晶状体混搭植入术后双眼视觉质量的研究

目的：研究散光矫正型双焦点人工晶状体与双焦点人工晶状体混搭植入术后的双眼视觉质量。

方法：横断面研究。纳入2020-01/2021-01收治的年龄相关性白内障患者54例108眼,按植入人工晶状体及术前角膜散光不同分为3组,A组21例42眼术前角膜散光均<1.0D,双眼植入双焦点人工晶状体; B组15例30眼术前角膜散光均≥1.0D,双眼植入散光双焦点人工晶状体; C组18例36眼,一眼术前角膜散光<1.0D,另一眼术前角膜散光≥1.0D,前者植入双焦点人工晶状体,后者植入散光双焦点人工晶状体。比较三组患者术前单眼视力,术后双眼视力、残余散光、双眼离焦曲线、对比敏感度(CS),三组患者术后进行问卷调查评估视觉质量。

结果：三组患者术前视力、术前眼压均无差异(P>0.05)。A组术后残余散光显著高于另两组(P=0.012,<0.05)。B组和C组双眼远视力优于A组(均P<0.05); B组和C组双眼近视力优于A组(均P<0.01); A组双眼中视力优于B组和C组(均P<0.01)。明视眩光6、12c/d,暗视6、12、18c/d,以及暗视眩光1.5、3、6、12、18c/d的空间频率下A组CS较B组和C组显著降低(均P<0.05)。术后视功能调查表三组间无差异(P>0.05)。

结论：散光双焦人工晶状体与双焦人工晶状体混搭植入可改善患者术后视觉质量。矫正散光有助于提高术后患者的视觉CS,但是散光全矫后,可能会导致患者术后中视力的下降。     

Comparison of visual outcomes with implantation of trifocal versus bifocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification: a Meta-analysis

AIM: To compare a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a bifocal IOL implantation in improving visual function after cataract surgery. METHODS: Eligible literatures were systematically searched through EMBASE and PubMed databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective comparative clinical trials on cataract surgery comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL implantation that assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and subjective vision quality. The effects were computed as standardized mean differences and pooled using fixed-effect or random-effect models. RESULTS: Four prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cohorts provided data were included by a systematic review, comprising 265 eyes implanted with trifocal IOLs and 264 eyes implanted with bifocal IOLs. Monocular distance visual acuity (VA) showed a statistically significant but small difference that favored trifocal IOLs (MD=-0.06; 95%CI, -0.10 to -0.02; Z=2.90, P=0.004 for uncorrected distance VA, and MD= -0.02; 95%CI, -0.03 to -0.00; Z=2.02, P=0.04 for corrected distance VA), but the data did not suggest that the effect of trifocal IOL implantation would clinically outperform bifocal IOL implantation. There was no significant difference in monocular near VA (MD=-0.01; 95%CI, -0.07 to 0.04; Z=0.42, P=0.68 for distance-corrected near VA, and MD=-0.01; 95%CI, -0.06 to 0.03; Z=0.55, P=0.58 for corrected near VA) or refraction between two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality had no conclusive results. CONCLUSION: All results indicate that trifocal IOL and bifocal IOL had similar levels of monocular distance and near VA.     

Long-term visual results of bifocal intraocular lens implantation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term visual results and variability in contrast sensitivity in patients with heparin-surface-modified (HSM) diffractive bifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Institute of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Italy. METHODS: In this prospective study, visual acuity (distance and near) and contrast sensitivity were measured in 35 patients who had phacoemulsification with bifocal diffractive IOL (model 811E, Pharmacia) implantation. Patient satisfaction was also evaluated using a questionnaire. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range 18 to 24 months). RESULTS: At the last examination, mean distance visual acuity was 0.79 +/- 0.2 (SD) without correction and 1.0 +/- 0.15 with best correction. Mean uncorrected near visual acuity was J1.6 +/- J0.77 and with best distance correction, J1.19 +/- J0.49. No statistically significant changes in visual acuity were evident at the last follow-up (Student t test). No changes were found in contrast sensitivity reduction over time, nor were late postoperative complications noted. Overall patient satisfaction was rated as good by 94.3% of patients with best distance correction. CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive bifocal HSM IOL provided good visual performance for distance and near over time. In relation to the low rate of postoperative complications, the slight contrast sensitivity reduction was stable during follow-up.     

Prospective visual evaluation of apodized diffractive intraocular lenses

PURPOSE: To evaluate distance, intermediate, and near visual performance in patients who had multifocal apodized diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. SETTING: Fernández-Vega Ophthalmological Institute, Oviedo, Spain. METHODS: The best corrected distance visual acuity, best distance-corrected near visual acuity, intermediate visual acuity, distance contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, and patient satisfaction were measured in 325 patients and 335 patients who had bilateral implantation of the model SA60D3 IOL (AcrySof ReSTOR, Alcon) and model SN60D3 IOL (AcrySof Natural ReSTOR), respectively. RESULTS: At the 6-month postoperative visit, binocular best corrected distance acuity with the ReSTOR IOL and the Natural ReSTOR IOL was 0.034 logMAR+/-0.004 (SD) and 0.019+/-0.020 logMAR, respectively (approximately 20/20). Binocular best distance-corrected near acuity was 0.011+/-0.012 logMAR and 0.035+/-0.013 logMAR, respectively (approximately 20/20). Intermediate visual acuity with both IOL models worsened significantly as a function of the distance of the test (P<.01). Photopic contrast sensitivity was within the standard normal range with both IOLs. Under mesopic conditions, contrast sensitivity with both IOLs was comparable to that with monofocal IOLs and lower, particularly at higher spatial frequencies, than under photopic conditions. No statistically significant differences in visual acuity or photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity were found between the 2 IOL models (P>.1). A patient satisfaction questionnaire showed that both IOLs performed well and were comparable in satisfaction regarding distance, intermediate, and near activities under different lighting conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The AcrySof ReSTOR IOL and AcrySof Natural ReSTOR IOL provided good visual performance at distance and near under photopic and mesopic conditions. Intermediate vision with both models was reduced compared with distance and near vision.     

Funktionelle Ergebnisse nach Implantation multifokaler Intraokularlinsen (MIOL)

BACKGROUND: A multifocal intraocular lens (MIOL) with diffractive and aspherical optical design and asymmetrical light distribution (Acri.Twin, Acri.Tec) was compared to the standard MIOL, the Array SA40. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After 6 months, 16 patients with bilateral implantation of the Acri.Twin and 14 patients with bilateral Array IOL were examined to assess uncorrected and best corrected visual acuity for distance and near, contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions, stereopsis, pupil diameter, and centration of the IOL. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed between the two MIOL in improved near visual acuity of the Acri.Twin MIOL (0.8 vs 0.4). Most of the patients described dysphotic phenomena, which were somewhat different for both MIOL, but expressed general satisfaction except for one patient. Concerning contrast sensitivity both MIOL were significantly inferior to data published for an aspherical monofocal IOL.     

双眼三焦点人工晶状体和双焦点人工晶状体植入术后早期视觉质量比较

对双眼植入三焦点人工晶状体（IOL）或双焦点IOL术后早期的视觉质量进行比较研究。方法：前瞻性临床研究。选择武汉爱尔眼科医院2017年4月至2018年5月收治的双眼单纯年龄相关性白内障患者52例（104眼），依据患者选择的IOL进行分组，双眼均植入双焦点IOL 26例（52眼）作为双焦点组，双眼均植入三焦点IOL 26例（52眼）患者作为三焦点组，术后随访3个月，观察2组间裸眼远视力（UDVA）、裸眼中视力（UIVA）、裸眼近视力（UNVA）、矫正远视力（BCDVA）、矫正远中视力（DCIVA）、矫正远近视力（DCNVA）、离焦曲线、对比敏感度、波前像差、调制传递函数等，并进行VF-14-CN生活质量问卷满意度及脱镜率调查。数据采用独立样本t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验及χ2 检验进行统计分析。结果：三焦点组UIVA明显优于双焦点组（Z=-2.347，P=0.019），而2组间 UDVA、UNVA、BCDVA、DCIVA、DCNVA差异均无统计学意义。三焦点组在-1.0、-3.0、-3.5、 -4.0 D离焦下视力明显优于双焦点组（Z=-2.619、-2.452、-2.452、-2.147，P=0.009、0.014、0.014、 0.032）。2组间明视及明视眩光对比敏感度差异均无统计学意义。3、5 mm瞳孔直径时，三焦点组眼内总高阶像差、眼内彗差、眼内三叶草差以及全眼总高阶像差、全眼三叶草差均明显低于双焦点组，差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。5 mm瞳孔直径时，三焦点组眼内球差明显低于双焦点组（Z=-3.053， P=0.002），余指标组间差异无统计学意义。2组在3、5 mm瞳孔直径时的调制传递函数差异均无统计学意义。2组间VF-14-CN得分、日常生活脱镜率以及患者满意度差异均无统计学意义。结论：与双眼植入双焦点IOL相比，双眼植入三焦点IOL能够为患者带来更好的中间距离视力，但二者在远近视力、视觉质量以及术后生活质量方面相近。     

Comparison of visual and refractive outcomes of diffractive bifocal toric and trifocal toric intraocular lenses 12 months after implantation in patients with moderate to high myopia

Purpose

To compare the visual and refractive outcomes of bifocal toric and trifocal toric intraocular lenses (IOL) in patients with moderate to high myopia at 12 months after implantation.

Method

This is a prospective and comparative study. In 120 eyes with moderate to high myopia and astigmatism, bifocal toric IOLs (n?=?60 eyes) or trifocal toric IOLs (n?=?60 eyes) were implanted. Eyes with axial lengths from 24.0 to 26.5 mm were included. Postoperative examinations measured near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA), along with refractive measurements, binocular defocus curves, and patient satisfaction with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.

Results

For uncorrected- and corrected distance intermediate VA, the trifocal group showed significantly better VA at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months than the bifocal group. Driving subscale scores from the questionnaire were significantly better in the trifocal than the bifocal group. Concerning the binocular defocus curve, uncorrected distance VA was significantly higher in the trifocal than bifocal group at test distances of -1.5 D.

Conclusions

Both trifocal and bifocal toric IOLs effectively corrected the near, intermediate, and distance vision in patients with moderate to high myopia and astigmatism. However, intermediate vision was significantly better in eyes with trifocal than bifocal toric IOLs.

     

Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE: To evaluate visual function of three types of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and one monofocal IOL (as the control group) after cataract surgery. METHODS: One hundred fourteen patients participated in a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study and received monofocal Tecnis Z9000 (AMO) (n = 24, 48 eyes); symmetric diffractive multifocal Tecnis ZM900 (AMO) (n = 26, 52 eyes); zonal refractive multifocal ReZoom (AMO) (n = 32, 64 eyes); and asymmetric diffractive multifocal TwinSet (Acri.Tec) (n = 32, 64 eyes) IOLs. RESULTS: Mean binocular distance best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) (logMAR) was 0.05 for controls, 0.08 for ZM900, 0.07 for ReZoom, and 0.11 for TwinSet, with mean binocular distance BSCVA at near of 0.49, 0.06, 0.22, and 0.11, respectively. Mean contrast sensitivity was better for the monofocal IOL group than for the multifocal IOLs. Patients assigned to TwinSet had less favorable contrast sensitivity scores. Patients with monofocal IOLs had more frequently recommended near addition (74%) than those with multifocal IOLs. Patients with refractive ReZoom had also recommended near addition more frequently than the two diffractive groups. The percentage of dysphotopsia phenomena was 81% in patients with diffractive multifocal ZM900 compared with 48% in patients with monofocal IOLs, 53% with refractive ReZoom, and 47% with diffractive TwinSet. CONCLUSIONS: The monofocal IOL showed better visual function and lesser photic phenomena than multifocal IOLs but patients were spectacle dependent. ReZoom provided better distance BSCVA than the TwinSet diffractive model. Patients with Tecnis and TwinSet diffractive multifocal IOLs were more spectacle independent than patients with ReZoom. Patients with TwinSet had the worst visual function. Patients implanted with the Tecnis diffractive ZM900 were those reporting more photic phenomena.     

【In Press】 Comparison of visual outcomes with implantation of trifocal versus bifocal intraocular lens after phacoemulsification: a Meta-analysis

AIM: To compare a trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) and a bifocal IOL implantation in improving visual function after cataract surgery. METHODS: Eligible literatures were systematically searched through EMBSE and PubMed databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective comparative clinical trials on cataract surgery comparing trifocal IOL with bifocal IOL implantation that assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and subjective vision quality. The effects were computed as standardized mean differences and pooled using fixed-effect or random-effect models. RESULTS: Four prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cohorts provided data and were included by a systematic review, comprising 265 eyes implanted with trifocal IOLs and 264 eyes implanted with bifocal IOLs. Monocular distance visual acuity (VA) showed a statistically significant but small difference that favored trifocal IOLs (MD=-0.06; 95%CI, -0.10 to -0.02; Z=2.90, P=0.004 for UDVA and MD=-0.02; 95%CI, -0.03 to -0.00; Z=2.02, P=0.04 for CDVA), but the data did not suggest that the effect of trifocal IOL implantation would clinically outperform bifocal IOL implantation. There was no significant difference in monocular near VA (MD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.04; Z=0.42, P=0.68 for UNVA, and MD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.03; Z=0.55, P=0.58 for DCNVA) or refraction between two groups. Contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality had no conclusive results. CONCLUSION: All results indicate that trifocal IOL and bifocal IOL had similar levels of monocular distance and near visual acuities. Besides, contrast sensitivity and subjective visual quality have no conclusive results.     

Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens implants

PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens (IOLs) implants. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized study. METHODS: Forty-nine patients were implanted with bilateral Crystalens (Eyeonics, Aliso Viejo, California, USA), ReSTOR (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, USA), and ReZoom (American Medical Optics, Santa Clara, California, USA) or combined Crystalens and ReSTOR or Crystalens and ReZoom IOLs after phacoemulsification. Monocular and binocular testing four to six months after surgery included uncorrected and best-spectacle corrected visual acuity at distance, intermediate, and near vision; mesopic contrast sensitivity function with and without glare; and quality-of-life and vision surveys six months after surgery. RESULTS: Monocular testing showed that eyes with Crystalens accommodating IOL had statistically better best-spectacle corrected distance, uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate, and best-corrected near vision. Eyes with the ReSTOR multifocal IOL had better uncorrected near vision, required the lowest reading add, and had the lowest uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate vision. Monocular mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare was better with the Crystalens IOL vs either multifocal IOL at specific spatial frequencies. The binocular subjective quality of vision and quality of life questionnaires were favorable for the bilateral Crystalens group. CONCLUSIONS: Any combination of Crystalens in one or both eyes was better for intermediate vision. Any combination of ReSTOR in one or both eyes was better for near vision. The Crystalens and ReSTOR combination had better mean intermediate and near vision overall. A multifocal IOL in one or both eyes was associated with lower contrast sensitivity and more subjective reports of photic phenomena. The accommodating and multifocal IOL combinations elicited less night glare symptoms than in patients with either bilateral multifocal IOL, but more than with bilateral Crystalens implantation.     

衍射型多焦点人工晶状体植入术后临床效果

目的:探讨衍射型多焦点人工晶状体植入术后的临床效果。方法:所有患者按照植入的人工晶状体类型分成多焦组和单焦组。多焦组植入衍射型多焦点人工晶状体AcrySof ReSTOR(Alcon),72例(109眼);单焦组植入单焦点人工晶状体AcrySof SA60AT(Alcon)作为对照,88例(130眼)。术后随访6~24mo,观察瞳孔直径,远近视力,最佳矫正视力,脱镜率,术后屈光状态、夜间视觉干扰现象等指标。结果:两组间在远视力和最佳矫正远近视力方面没有显著性差异,而近视力多焦组达到或超过J3的患者101眼(92.7%),单焦组12眼(9.2%),差异具有显著性(χ2=166.44,P=0.00)。两组完全脱镜率分别为98眼(89.9%)和9眼(6.9%)。多焦组完全脱镜的患者术后平均等效球镜为-0.03±0.45D(-1.0~+0.50D),6例7眼(6.4%)视近远时都需戴镜矫正,术后平均等效球镜+1.14D。结论:衍射型多焦点人工晶状体植入后能够使患者获得理想的远近视力,大大降低了患者对眼镜的依赖性。人工晶状体的屈光力测量精确性是增加术后脱镜率的重要因素,应该尽量避免术后等效球镜大于+0.50D。     

Clinical outcomes and intraocular optical quality of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with asymmetrical light distribution

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes and intraocular optical performance of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL), Acri.Lisa 366D (Acri.Tec). SETTING: Vissum-Instituto de Oftalmológico de Alicante, Alicante, Spain. METHODS: The study included 69 eyes (52 patients) with Acri.Lisa 366D IOLs. The intraocular optical quality in vivo was characterized by the difference between postoperative total and corneal optical aberrations. Visual and optical outcomes were evaluated 6 months postoperatively. The main outcomes measures were refractive defect, uncorrected and corrected distance acuities for far and near (40 cm), intraocular aberrations (root mean square [RMS]), modulation transfer function (MTF) values, point-spread function, and Strehl ratio. RESULTS: The mean spherical equivalent (SE) was +1.22 diopters (D) +/- 3.62 (SD) preoperatively and +0.39 +/- 0.51 D/D postoperatively; 69.32% of eyes were within +/-0.50 and 86.36%, within +/-1.00 D. The mean acuities were as follows: uncorrected distance, 0.75 +/- 0.20; best corrected distance, 0.94 +/- 0.11; best distance-corrected near, 0.90 +/- 0.14. Near corrected acuity was J1 in 91.76% of eyes and J2 in 4.71%. The mean aberration values were total RMS, 1.45 +/- 0.73 microm; spherical, 0.25 +/- 0.10 microm; coma, 0.37+/- 0.21 microm. The mean Strehl ratio was 0.26 +/- 0.05. The mean 0.5 MTF was 1.60 +/- 0.63 cycles per degree (cpd) and the mean cutoff value, 50.25 +/- 17.18 cpd. CONCLUSIONS: The Acri.Lisa 366D diffractive multifocal IOL gave good efficacy, predictability, and safety and excellent visual acuity at distance and near. An intraocular optical performance model showed good intraocular aberration, Strehl ratio, and MTF values.     

Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of Array SA40N multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (AMO) implantation in cataract surgery. SETTING: Helsinki University Eye Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. METHODS: In this prospective randomized comparative trial, 80 patients scheduled for cataract surgery were selected based on preoperative counseling and randomized to have multifocal or monofocal IOL implantation. Fifty-three eyes of 35 patients received a multifocal IOL and 67 eyes of 40 patients, a monofocal IOL. The incidence of complications and visual outcome in the multifocal and monofocal IOL groups were compared. Quality of vision was measured by comparing the severity of visual symptoms (glare, halos, and cataract symptoms score), changes in functional impairment measured by a 7-item visual function test (VF-7), changes in global measures of vision (trouble and satisfaction with vision), and range of accommodation and contrast sensitivity. RESULTS: Intraoperative and postoperative complications and adverse events were few and required no further surgical intervention. Both distance and near visual acuities were significantly better in the multifocal group than in the monofocal group; the difference was most prominent in distance corrected near acuity (P<.001). Thirty-five eyes (67.3%) in the multifocal group and 10 eyes (14.9%) in the monofocal group achieved a distance corrected near acuity of J6 (20/40) or better; 30 eyes (56.6%) and 19 eyes (28.4%), respectively, achieved a best corrected distance acuity of 20/20 or better. Glare symptoms decreased postoperatively in both groups but were slightly more common in the multifocal group. In contrast, halos were significantly more common at 1 month in the multifocal group (P<.001). Contrast sensitivity values were slightly lower with multifocal IOLs at almost all spatial frequencies, but the difference was not significant. The change in the quality of life postoperatively, measured with the VF-7, was significant and identical in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pseudophakic eyes with multifocal IOLs had better distance and near acuity and range of accommodation than eyes with a monofocal IOL. Slightly lower contrast sensitivity and increased perception of halos by subjects with the multifocal IOL appear to be an acceptable compromise to enhanced near and distance vision.