Visual Results Following Implantation of a Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens in One Eye and a Diffractive in the Contralateral Eye

Karabağ, Revan Yildirim; Günenç, Üzeyir; Aydin, Rukiye; Arıkan, Gül; Aslankara, Hüseyin

doi:10.4274/tjo.56588

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Follow-up included visual acuity examination, biomicroscopy, IOP measurement, and fundoscopy. Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) and clinically significant IOL decentration were examined as well [7]. Monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) and monocular best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were evaluated using the Logarithmic Visual Acuity Chart "ETDRS" R n °2110 (Precision Vision, Woodstock, IL, USA) and an illuminator cabinet (Precision Vision, Woodstock, IL, USA) at 4 m distance.…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: 10-Year Follow-Up

Giglio

Giacinto

Fanni

et al. 2023

Klin Monbl Augenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate and compare the long-term results after bilateral implantation of different multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs). Methods This retrospective comparative study included 42 patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral MIOL implantation. Patients were divided into 5 groups: Group 1 received a refractive ReZoom NGX1 IOL (AMO), Group 2 a diffractive Acrysof ReSTOR SA60D3 IOL (Alcon), and Group 3 a diffractive Tecnis ZM900 IOL (AMO). Group 4 and Group 5 were implanted using the mix and match approach with refractive ReZoom-diffractive ReSTOR IOL and refractive ReZoom-diffractive Tecnis ZM900 IOL, respectively. Primary outcome measures were distance, near, and intermediate distance visual acuity measured 6 months (T0) and 10 years (T1) after surgery. Secondary outcomes were defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, patientsʼ satisfaction, and spectacle independence. Results All patients achieved best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) greater than 0.11 logMAR and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) greater than 0.14 logMAR at both time points. A decrease in contrast sensitivity was evident, particularly at high spatial frequencies; at T1, Group 4 reported statistically higher values than Group 2 at 12 cycles/degree and 18 cycles/degree and statistically higher values than Group 3 at 18 cycles/degree. Great overall satisfaction was reported even in the presence of dysphotopsia. Tecnis ZM900 IOL showed the lowest incidence of posterior capsular opacification. Conclusion MIOLs could provide adequate functional vision and patient satisfaction, despite the incidence of side effects, in carefully selected patients desiring spectacle independence.

show abstract

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: 10-Year Follow-Up

Giglio

Giacinto

Fanni

et al. 2023

Klin Monbl Augenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the multizonal IOL design may lead to a loss of contrast sensitivity associated with the distribution of the total available light between several focal points [ 3 ]. While clinical studies have found better contrast sensitivity after the implantation of diffractive IOLs rather than refractive ones, some authors have disagreed with these findings and reached the opposite conclusions [ 6 , 7 ]. The limitations of concentric-refractive technology may be addressed by the introduction of a multi-segmented approach with alternating focal zones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spectral Effects and Range of Focus in a Multizonal-Refractive Intraocular Lens Compared with a Standard Trifocal Diffractive Design

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This study was performed to compare the optical performance of a multizonal presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens (IOL) and a conventional trifocal model. Methods: The optical quality and simulated visual acuity (VA) of 570 Precizon Presbyopic NVA (OPHTEC BV) and AcrySof IQ PanOptix (Alcon) were compared. The Precizon features a refractive design consisting of alternating optical zones that converge the incident light into two principal foci and a transitional zone for intermediate vision. By contrast, the PanOptix applies a diffractive (non-apodized) profile to achieve trifocality. Simulated VA was derived from the modulation transfer function. Chromatic aberration effects were also studied. Results: The diffractive and multizonal-refractive lenses yielded comparable simulated VAs at far focus (0.00 logMAR). All curves showed a reduction in expected VA with an increase in negative defocus. At -1.0 D, the multizonal-refractive IOL's VA dropped by 0.05 logMAR, but for the diffractive model, it was one line (0.11 logMAR). The multizonal-refractive lens's VA prediction at the secondary peak was 0.03 logMAR-minimally better than the 0.06 log-MAR of the diffractive lens at -2.5 D. The refractive lens exhibited a 24% decrease in polychromatic optical quality due to material dispersion. The performance of PanOptix was more substantially affected, showing a 44% loss at 50 lp/mm at far, with minimal effects at other distances. Conclusion:The multizonal-refractive lens does not fall short of the established trifocal IOL, and it can be used to extend the visual range of pseudophakic patients. Although the multizonal-refractive lens has lower material dispersion, the diffractive model corrects chromatism beyond far focus.

show abstract

“…It has been demonstrated that complaints such as photic phenomena are more often reported by patients with MF-IOLs than with MNF-IOLs [ 24 ]. However, no statistically significant differences in halos and glare were found between refractive and diffractive MF-IOLs [ 25 ]. Our previous study [ 9 ] demonstrated that the patients treated with an exchange to another MF-IOL had better satisfaction than an exchange to a MNF-IOL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifocal intraocular lens exchange to monofocal for the management of neuroadaptation failure

Al-Shymali¹,

Barrio²,

McAlinden³

et al. 2022

Eye and Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate visual, refractive, quality of vision, visual function and satisfaction of multifocal intraocular lens (MF-IOL) exchange with a monofocal IOL (MNF-IOL) in dissatisfied patients following MF-IOL implantation. Methods This was a retrospective case series. Bilateral IOL exchange (MF-IOL to MNF-IOL) was performed in 13 patients (26 eyes) with neuroadaptation failure. Questionnaires including the Quality of Vision (QoV), Visual Function Index (VF-14 and Rasch-revised VF-8R version), and a satisfaction questionnaire were used. Results The mean time for IOL exchange was 15 months. The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) improved from 20/26 to 20/23 (P = 0.028). The uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) worsened after exchange from 20/47 to 20/62 (P = 0.024). QoV scores improved significantly across all three subscales after exchange. Visual function for far distance improved with a change in VF-14 score from 74.2 ± 24.8 to 90.9 ± 9.1 (P = 0.03). The VF-8R score showed worsening although not statistically significant. Near vision spectacle independence was totally or partially lost in all cases. Ten patients (77%) reported they would not repeat the lens exchange. Safety and efficacy indices changed from 1.23 to 0.85, respectively, at three months to 1.24 (P = 0.871) and 0.89 (P = 0.568), respectively, at one year. Conclusion IOL exchange (multifocal to monofocal) to solve neuroadaptation failure in this case series resulted in significant improvements in dysphotopsia and improved distance visual function. However, UNVA worsened and patient satisfaction after exchange remained suboptimal with 77% claiming they would not repeat the lens exchange, suggesting the value of near vision spectacle independence for these patients.

show abstract

Visual Results Following Implantation of a Refractive Multifocal Intraocular Lens in One Eye and a Diffractive in the Contralateral Eye

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: 10-Year Follow-Up

Bilateral Implantation of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: 10-Year Follow-Up

Spectral Effects and Range of Focus in a Multizonal-Refractive Intraocular Lens Compared with a Standard Trifocal Diffractive Design

Multifocal intraocular lens exchange to monofocal for the management of neuroadaptation failure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About