Uzeyir Gunenc1, Lider Celik. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. ugunenc@deu.edu.tr
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual performance of the refractive Array SA40N and the diffractive CeeOn 811E multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to evaluate the potential benefits of combining both multifocal IOLs in the same patient. METHODS:Two groups of cataract patients were unilaterally implanted with either the CeeOn diffractive (n = 10) or the Array refractive multifocal IOL (n = 10). Another group was bilaterally implanted with one of each multifocal IOLs (mix & match group, n = 10). Visual acuity, spectacle independence, depth of focus, contrast sensitivity, presence of photic phenomena, and patient satisfaction were assessed postoperatively. RESULTS: All eyes achieved good distance visual acuity but better uncorrected near vision was achieved with the CeeOn diffractive design. Contrast sensitivity with either multifocal IOL was at the lower limit of the normal range but when multifocal IOLs were combined in the same patient, contrast sensitivity was not significantly different from phakic controls. Defocus curves revealed a superiority of CeeOn diffractive design for near and Array refractive design for intermediate but mix & match patients performed better overall than the other patients, particularly for intermediate distances, which was reflected by total independence from spectacles in 90% of patients compared to 60% in the other groups. Visual outcomes remained unchanged over time (1 month vs 6 month vs > 3 years). CONCLUSIONS:Bilateral implantation with a diffractive multifocal IOL in one eye and a refractive multifocal IOL in the fellow eye is safe and could provide patients with better intermediate vision, increased depth of focus and contrast sensitivity, and also less dependence on spectacles.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare visual performance of the refractive Array SA40N and the diffractive CeeOn 811E multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and to evaluate the potential benefits of combining both multifocal IOLs in the same patient. METHODS: Two groups of cataractpatients were unilaterally implanted with either the CeeOn diffractive (n = 10) or the Array refractive multifocal IOL (n = 10). Another group was bilaterally implanted with one of each multifocal IOLs (mix & match group, n = 10). Visual acuity, spectacle independence, depth of focus, contrast sensitivity, presence of photic phenomena, and patient satisfaction were assessed postoperatively. RESULTS: All eyes achieved good distance visual acuity but better uncorrected near vision was achieved with the CeeOn diffractive design. Contrast sensitivity with either multifocal IOL was at the lower limit of the normal range but when multifocal IOLs were combined in the same patient, contrast sensitivity was not significantly different from phakic controls. Defocus curves revealed a superiority of CeeOn diffractive design for near and Array refractive design for intermediate but mix & match patients performed better overall than the other patients, particularly for intermediate distances, which was reflected by total independence from spectacles in 90% of patients compared to 60% in the other groups. Visual outcomes remained unchanged over time (1 month vs 6 month vs > 3 years). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral implantation with a diffractive multifocal IOL in one eye and a refractive multifocal IOL in the fellow eye is safe and could provide patients with better intermediate vision, increased depth of focus and contrast sensitivity, and also less dependence on spectacles.
Authors: Jae Hyuck Lee; Ho Seok Chung; Su Young Moon; So Young Park; Hun Lee; Jae Yong Kim; Hungwon Tchah Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 1.909