No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Good unaided distance visual acuity is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of multifocal IOLs, including effects on visual acuity, subjective visual satisfaction, spectacle dependence, glare and contrast sensitivity, compared to standard monofocal lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. METHODS: Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register), The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www. controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who. int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 6 March 2012. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted investigators of included studies and manufacturers of multifocal IOLs for information about additional published and unpublished studies. Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. Data collection and analysis: Two authors collected data and assessed trial quality. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a random-effects model, otherwise we tabulated data. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen completed trials (1608 participants) and two ongoing trials were identified. All included trials compared multifocal and monofocal lenses but there was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask patients and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias. There was moderate quality evidence that similar distance acuity is achieved with both types of lenses (pooled risk ratio, RR for unaided visual acuity worse than 6/6: 0.98, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.91 to 1.05). There was also evidence that people with multifocal lenses had better near vision but methodological and statistical heterogeneity meant that we did not calculate a pooled estimate for effect on near vision. Total freedom from use of glasses was achieved more frequently with multifocal than monofocal IOLs.

BACKGROUND: Good unaided distance visual acuity is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of multifocal IOLs, including effects on visual acuity, subjective visual satisfaction, spectacle dependence, glare and contrast sensitivity, compared to standard monofocal lenses in people undergoing cataract surgery. METHODS: Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register), The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www. controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who. int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 6 March 2012. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted investigators of included studies and manufacturers of multifocal IOLs for information about additional published and unpublished studies. Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. Data collection and analysis: Two authors collected data and assessed trial quality. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a random-effects model, otherwise we tabulated data. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen completed trials (1608 participants) and two ongoing trials were identified. All included trials compared multifocal and monofocal lenses but there was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask patients and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias. There was moderate quality evidence that similar distance acuity is achieved with both types of lenses (pooled risk ratio, RR for unaided visual acuity worse than 6/6: 0.98, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.91 to 1.05). There was also evidence that people with multifocal lenses had better near vision but methodological and statistical heterogeneity meant that we did not calculate a pooled estimate for effect on near vision. Total freedom from use of glasses was achieved more frequently with multifocal than monofocal IOLs.

No abstract

Aims To evaluate the functional effect of bilateral implantation of two different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) compared with the standard monofocal IOL. Methods Sixty-nine patients were recruited into a prospective, double-masked, randomised, controlled trial at a single hospital in the United Kingdom. Sixty completed follow-up; 16 implanted with monofocal IOLs, 29 with AMO 'ARRAY' multifocal IOLs and 15 with Storz 'TRUEVISTA' bifocal IOLs. Phacoemulsification and IOL implantation was performed to a standardised technique in both eyes within a 2-month period. The main outcome measures were distance and near visual acuity, depth of field and validated assessment of subjective function (TyPE questionnaire). Results Unaided distance acuity was good, and equivalent across the three groups. Corrected distance acuity was significantly lower in the bifocal group. Patients with multifocal and bifocal IOLs could read smaller absolute print size than those in the monofocal group (P = 0.05), but at a closer reading distance such that mean unaided near acuity was equal in the three groups. Corrected near acuity was significantly higher in the monofocal control group (P Ͻ 0.05). Depth of field was increased in multifocal (P = 0.06) and bifocal (P = 0.004) groups. Overall visual satisfaction was equal in the three groups, while near visual satisfaction was higher in the multifocal group than the monofocal (P = 0.04). Spectacle independence was not seen in the monofocal group, but was achieved in 28% of multifocal IOL patients and 33% of bifocal patients (P Ͻ 0.001). Adverse symptoms such as glare and haloes were significantly more bothersome with multifocal (not bifocal) IOLs than monofocals (P = 0.01). Conclusions Multifocal and bifocal IOLs improved unaided near vision performance, with around one in three patients becoming spectacle-independent. The main adverse effect was an increased incidence of subjective glare and haloes in the multifocal IOL group.

Our novel methodology of controlling alginate gel shape and pore size together provides a more practical and economical alternative to established corneal tissue/cell storage methods.

Sixteen completed trials (1608 participants) and two ongoing trials were identified. All included trials compared multifocal and monofocal lenses but there was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask patients and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias. There was moderate quality evidence that similar distance acuity is achieved with both types of lenses (pooled risk ratio, RR for unaided visual acuity worse than 6/6: 0.98, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.91 to 1.05). There was also evidence that people with multifocal lenses had better near vision but methodological and statistical heterogeneity meant that we did not calculate a pooled estimate for effect on near vision. Total freedom from use of glasses was achieved more frequently with multifocal than monofocal IOLs. Adverse subjective visual phenomena, particularly haloes, or rings around lights, were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with the multifocal IOL and there was evidence of reduced contrast sensitivity with the multifocal lenses.