Literature DB >> 17651679

Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens implants.

Jay S Pepose1, Mujtaba A Qazi, James Davies, John F Doane, James C Loden, Varunan Sivalingham, Ashraf M Mahmoud.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance of patients with bilateral vs combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens (IOLs) implants.
DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized study.
METHODS: Forty-nine patients were implanted with bilateral Crystalens (Eyeonics, Aliso Viejo, California, USA), ReSTOR (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, USA), and ReZoom (American Medical Optics, Santa Clara, California, USA) or combined Crystalens and ReSTOR or Crystalens and ReZoom IOLs after phacoemulsification. Monocular and binocular testing four to six months after surgery included uncorrected and best-spectacle corrected visual acuity at distance, intermediate, and near vision; mesopic contrast sensitivity function with and without glare; and quality-of-life and vision surveys six months after surgery.
RESULTS: Monocular testing showed that eyes with Crystalens accommodating IOL had statistically better best-spectacle corrected distance, uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate, and best-corrected near vision. Eyes with the ReSTOR multifocal IOL had better uncorrected near vision, required the lowest reading add, and had the lowest uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate vision. Monocular mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare was better with the Crystalens IOL vs either multifocal IOL at specific spatial frequencies. The binocular subjective quality of vision and quality of life questionnaires were favorable for the bilateral Crystalens group.
CONCLUSIONS: Any combination of Crystalens in one or both eyes was better for intermediate vision. Any combination of ReSTOR in one or both eyes was better for near vision. The Crystalens and ReSTOR combination had better mean intermediate and near vision overall. A multifocal IOL in one or both eyes was associated with lower contrast sensitivity and more subjective reports of photic phenomena. The accommodating and multifocal IOL combinations elicited less night glare symptoms than in patients with either bilateral multifocal IOL, but more than with bilateral Crystalens implantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17651679     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.05.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  29 in total

1.  Quality of vision, patient satisfaction and long-term visual function after bilateral implantation of a low addition multifocal intraocular lens.

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

2.  All-distance visual acuity in eyes with a nontinted or a yellow-tinted diffractive multifocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Ken Hayashi; Miki Masumoto; Hideyuki Hayashi
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 3.  Premium intraocular lenses use in patients with cataract and concurrent glaucoma: a review.

Authors:  Raluca Iancu; Catalina Corbu
Journal:  Maedica (Buchar)       Date:  2013-09

Review 4.  [Use of multifocal intraocular lenses and criteria for patient selection].

Authors:  T Kohnen; D Kook; G U Auffarth; V Derhartunian
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  Predictive factor and kappa angle analysis for visual satisfactions in patients with multifocal IOL implantation.

Authors:  G Prakash; D R Prakash; A Agarwal; D A Kumar; A Agarwal; S Jacob
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Diffractive trifocal lens implantation with or without excimer laser enhancement: is a touch-up procedure a negative predictor for refractive and subjective outcome?

Authors:  Anne-Karen von Beckerath; Toam Katz; Anna Harfst; Vasyl Druchkiv; Andreas Frings
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Visual performance with accommodating and multifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Jie Lan; Yu-Sen Huang; Yun-Hai Dai; Xiao-Ming Wu; Jia-Jun Sun; Li-Xin Xie
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 8.  [The basics of refractive lens exchange].

Authors:  T Kohnen; O K Klaproth
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.059

9.  Wavefront analysis and modulation transfer function of three multifocal intraocular lenses.

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

10.  A contralateral eye study comparing apodized diffractive and full diffractive lenses: wavefront analysis and distance and near uncorrected visual acuity.

Authors:  Marcony Rodrigues de Santhiago; Marcelo Vieira Netto; Jackson Barreto; Beatriz de Abreu Fiuza Gomes; Arthur Schaefer; Newton Kara-Junior
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.365

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.