Prospective study of the new diffractive bifocal intraocular lens

Percival, S.P.B.

doi:10.1038/eye.1989.89

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous analysis of 55 best case monofocal implants showed an incidence of 31 % seeing 6/12 and N6 unaided and 2% see ing N5 with the distance correction. 5 We con sidered this to be the safest of the three lens types, being distance dominant (Table I) and because reading acuity could always be improved by the addition of reading spec tacles. This in fact was the preferred option for 9/24 (37.5% ) patients (Table V).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of three prospective trials of multifocal implants

Percival

Setty

1991

Eye

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryA clinical analysis of best cases four to 12 months postoperatively was made to assess the function of 47 3M multifocal implants, 40 Iolab multifocal implants and 24 AMO multifocal implants. Overall 86 (79%) eyes could see 6/12 and N6 unaided. The multifocal function for each lens worked well for distance, intermediate and near in the majority but an increase in depth of field was at a cost of reduced resolution effi ciency. The 3M lens was associated with symptoms of poor optical quality in 29.8% and with an inability to read N 5 with correction in 17 %. The Iolab lens provided bet ter reading vision but less good distant vision than the other types and was associated with symptoms of poor optical quality in 15%. Many of these had a pupil diameter greater than 3.5 mm. The AMO lens gave a poorer unaided reading vision than the other lens types but had the lowest incidence of optical symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of three prospective trials of multifocal implants

Percival

Setty

1991

Eye

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diffractive IOLs, the first to be evaluated clinically, initially showed significant optical deficiencies. [1][2][3] Refractive zonal-progressive IOLs were developed to avoid the problems of diffractive IOLs, giving, despite their bias toward distance vision, acceptable distance and near visual performance when implanted. 4,5 New diffractive IOL designs are reported to offer better visual quality than earlier models.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optical quality of the eye after lens replacement with a pseudoaccommodating intraocular lens

Montés‐Micó¹,

Ferrer-Blasco²,

Charman³

et al. 2008

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Currently, physicians have the choice between different optical designs. The most frequently used MIOLs are those based on a diffractive platform that sends light to the retina with a predefined light distribution to different foci [2]. The first designs were bifocal which allowed the patient to obtain a postoperative functional distance and near vision [3] [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residual Astigmatism Threshold and Patient Satisfaction with Bifocal, Trifocal and Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses (IOLs)

Carones¹

2017

OJOph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the impact of induced astigmatism with four different types of multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). Method: Prospective, comparative, interventional, mono-centered study, including 80 eyes of patients with implantation of four different MIOLs: AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D (20 eyes), AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D (20 eyes), AcrySof Panoptix (20 eyes) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), and Tecnis Symfony ZRX00 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, USA) (20 eyes). Patients were followed up for 3 months after surgery. Major parameters were uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, subjective refraction and patient satisfaction. Results: Differences between IOLs with regard to the impact of the cylinder sign and axis on visual acuity and patient satisfaction were not significant. With mild added negative cylinder, AcrySof ReSTOR +2.5 D and Tecnis Symfony IOLs maintained the baseline visual acuity, while it was mildly reduced with AcrySof ReSTOR +3.0 D and Panoptix IOLs. With moderate induced cylinder, the Tecnis Symfony IOL maintained good visual acuity and patient associated satisfaction. Panoptix IOL was the IOL most affected by the induced astigmatism with regard to dissatisfaction and visual acuity. The highest tolerance to the astigmatic distortion and blurriness induced with a −1.50 D cylinder was obtained with the Tecnis Symfony IOL. Tecnis Symfony IOL showed less dissatisfaction and less reduction of visual acuity than the other MIOLs. Conclusion: Simulated residual cylinders after the implantation of the Tecnis Symfony IOL up to 1.0 D have a very mild and not clinically relevant impact on visual acuity or patient satisfaction. The ERV IOL showed a better tolerance to unexpected postoperative residual errors than diffractive bifocal and trifocal IOLs.

show abstract

Prospective study of the new diffractive bifocal intraocular lens

Cited by 31 publications

References 3 publications

Comparative analysis of three prospective trials of multifocal implants

Comparative analysis of three prospective trials of multifocal implants

Optical quality of the eye after lens replacement with a pseudoaccommodating intraocular lens

Residual Astigmatism Threshold and Patient Satisfaction with Bifocal, Trifocal and Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses (IOLs)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About