PURPOSE: Evaluate the visual performance of the AcrySof ReSTOR intraocular lens (IOL) and compare it with the monofocal SA60AT IOL. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, clinical trial. METHODS:Forty patients (80 eyes) from the Federal University of São Paulo were enrolled in two groups. Twenty-five patients were assigned to the ReSTOR group and 15 patients to the monofocal group. Inclusion criteria were corneal astigmatism <1.0 diopter, potential acuity meter >0.2 logMAR units, and no associated ocular diseases. Parameters analyzed included distance uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity, near uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuity, intermediate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart), stereopsis (Titmus test), reading speed, wavefront measurement (LADARWave aberrometer), and a quality-of-life questionnaire. main outcome measure: Distance and near uncorrected and best distance corrected visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and reading speed. RESULTS:Distance uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity in the ReSTOR group were not statistically different from the monofocal group (P = .66). Near uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuity were statistically better in the ReSTOR group than the monofocal group (0.16 +/- 0.13 vs 0.62 +/- 0.09, P < .001, and 0.14 +/- 0.12 vs 0.62 +/- 0.07, P < .001, respectively). The ReSTOR group demonstrated less spherical aberrations compared with the monofocal group (P < .001). Monocular photopic contrast sensitivity was statistically lower in the ReSTOR group (P < .001). Stereopsis and reading speed were not statistically different between the groups. CONCLUSION: The AcrySof ReSTOR IOL provides a satisfactory full range of vision and achieves a more satisfactory quality of life when compared with the monofocal SA60AT IOL, but with lower contrast sensitivity.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Evaluate the visual performance of the AcrySof ReSTOR intraocular lens (IOL) and compare it with the monofocal SA60AT IOL. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, clinical trial. METHODS: Forty patients (80 eyes) from the Federal University of São Paulo were enrolled in two groups. Twenty-five patients were assigned to the ReSTOR group and 15 patients to the monofocal group. Inclusion criteria were corneal astigmatism <1.0 diopter, potential acuity meter >0.2 logMAR units, and no associated ocular diseases. Parameters analyzed included distance uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity, near uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuity, intermediate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart), stereopsis (Titmus test), reading speed, wavefront measurement (LADARWave aberrometer), and a quality-of-life questionnaire. main outcome measure: Distance and near uncorrected and best distance corrected visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and reading speed. RESULTS: Distance uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity in the ReSTOR group were not statistically different from the monofocal group (P = .66). Near uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuity were statistically better in the ReSTOR group than the monofocal group (0.16 +/- 0.13 vs 0.62 +/- 0.09, P < .001, and 0.14 +/- 0.12 vs 0.62 +/- 0.07, P < .001, respectively). The ReSTOR group demonstrated less spherical aberrations compared with the monofocal group (P < .001). Monocular photopic contrast sensitivity was statistically lower in the ReSTOR group (P < .001). Stereopsis and reading speed were not statistically different between the groups. CONCLUSION: The AcrySof ReSTOR IOL provides a satisfactory full range of vision and achieves a more satisfactory quality of life when compared with the monofocal SA60AT IOL, but with lower contrast sensitivity.
Authors: Emilio Pedrotti; Rodolfo Mastropasqua; Jacopo Bonetto; Christian Demasi; Francesco Aiello; Carlo Nucci; Cesare Mariotti; Giorgio Marchini Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Marcony R Santhiago; Marcelo V Netto; Jackson Barreto; Beatriz A F Gomes; Arthur Schaefer; Newton Kara-Junior Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.848