Desempenho visual dos pacientes pseudofácicos com diferentes lentes intraoculares

Hida, Wilson Takashi; Nakano, Celso Takashi; Yamane, Iris; Motta, Andréa Rodrigues; Tzeliks, Patrick Frenzel; Alencar, Luciana M.; Oshika, Tetsuro; Netto, Marcelo V.; Ventura, Dora Fix; Kara-Júnior, Newton

doi:10.1590/s0034-72802013000500002

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, it is understood that the same difficulty in measurement was imposed upon both groups, making comparisons reasonable. Hida et al compared the ZM900 and SN60D3 lenses and found similar aberrometric results, as did Nakano et al (10,27) . Moreno et al evaluated a system for analyzing the wavefront of a double-passage Optical Quality Analysis System (Visiometrics, S.L., Cerdanyola, BCN, Spain) that could differentiate the two wavefronts and thereby assess the optical quality more accurately for better differentiation (29) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…The analysis of groups distribution demonstrates homogeneity and enables comparisons between groups, indicating its suitability for comparison to other publications (7,10,(21)(22)(23)(24) . As demonstrated in other studies, the good quality of distance and near vision was attested through both types of lenses, regardless of which addition had been used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…It must be considered that under photopic and mesopic conditions, the two groups showed averages below their corresponding monofocal IOLs peers, as described in other studies. Considering CS, ZA9003 IOL has been considered better than the ZMA00 IOL (10,22,23) . Nakano et al and Vingolo et al concluded the same by comparing SN60WF and SA60AT IOLs with SN60D3 and ZM900 IOLs (27,28) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main incision was made in the steepest corneal meridian in three planes to encourage self-sealing. Continuous circular capsulorhexis and hydrodissection were performed and followed by viscoelastic soft-shell technique (10) . Phacoemulsification was followed by irrigation and aspiration of the lenticular cortex and was concluded with implantation of one of the following lenses into the capsular bag: AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® Multifocal IOL SN6AD1 or AMO Tecnis® ZMB00.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The addition promoted by the lens, whether it is +2.5 diopters (D), +3.0 D, or +4.0 D, influences the best reading distance and depth of focus. These different compositions culminate in distinctly different optical aberrometric behaviors (8)(9)(10) . In this study, we compared visual parameters, optical performance, contrast sensitivity (CS), and wavefront analysis results between two different types of multifocal lenses currently available in the market: AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® Multifocal IOL SN6AD1 (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) and AMO Tecnis® ZMB00 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA, USA).…”

Section: Multifocal Iol Sn6ad1mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparative study on optical performance and visual outcomes between two diffractive multifocal lenses: AMO Tecnis® ZMB00 and AcrySof® IQ ReSTOR® Multifocal IOL SN6AD1

Chaves¹,

Hida²,

Tzeliks³

et al. 2016

Arquivos Brasileiros De Oftalmologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the optical performance and visual outcomes between two diffractive multifocal lenses: AMO Tecnis® ZMB00 and AcrySof® ReSTOR® SN6AD1. Methods: This prospective, non-randomized comparative study included the assessment of 74 eyes in 37 patients referred for cataract surgery and candidates for multifocal intraocular lens implants. Exclusion criteria included existence of any other eye disease, previous eye surgery, high axial myopia, preoperative corneal astigmatism of >1.00 cylindrical diopter (D), and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Ophthalmological evaluation included the measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (DCIVA), with analysis of contrast sensitivity (CS), wavefront, and visual defocus curve. Results: Postoperative UDVA was 0.09 and 0.08 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.868); postoperative CDVA was 0.04 and 0.02 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.68); DCIVA was 0.17 and 0.54 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.000); and DCNVA was 0.04 and 0.09 logMAR in the SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups, respectively (p=0.001). In both cases, there was an improvement in the spherical equivalent and UDVA (p<0.05). Under photopic conditions, the SN6AD1 group had better CS at low frequencies without glare (p=0.04); however, the ZMB00 group achieved better sensitivity at high frequencies with glare (p=0.003). The SN6AD1 and ZMB00 lenses exhibited similar behavior for intermediate vision, according to the defocus curve; however, the ZMB00 group showed a shorter reading distance than the SN6AD1 group. There were no significant differences regarding aberrometry between the two groups. Conclusion: Both lenses promoted better quality of vision for both long and short distances and exhibited a similar behavior for intermediate vision. The SN6AD1 and ZMB00 groups showed better results for CS under photopic conditions at low and high spatial frequencies, respectively. Keywords

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%