PURPOSE: To evaluate visual acuities and contrast sensitivities (CS) after accommodative, refractive, and diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantations. METHODS: After cataract extractions, in 20 eyes accommodative IOL (group 1), in 30 eyes refractive IOL (group 2), and in 20 eyes diffractive multifocal IOL (group 3) implantations were performed. CS were measured with the stereo optical functional acuity contrast test. Uncorrected distance (UCDVA) and distance corrected near visual acuities (DCNVA) and refractive values were determined. RESULTS: The mean UCDVA (0.99+/-0.03) and DCNVA (0.98+/-0.04) of group 3 were significantly better than the other IOL groups. The mean DCNVA of group 2 (0.71+/-0.14) was significantly better than group 1 (0.5+/-0.08). One month after the operations CS, values of group 2 were significantly lower than the 2 other IOL groups. Photopic CS values of group 1 at 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were significantly higher than group 3. Three months after the operations, CS values of group 1 and 3 were significantly higher than that of group 2 at 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd and in all spatial frequencies respectively. There was no difference between groups 1 and 3 with respect to photopic CS values. Mesopic CS values of group 3 were significantly higher than that of group 1 at 1.5, 3, and 6 cpd. At the 6th and 12th month, CS values of group 3 were similar or better compared to the values of the 3rd month. CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive multifocal IOL resulted in more favorable visual acuities and higher CS values than accommodative and refractive multifocal IOL.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual acuities and contrast sensitivities (CS) after accommodative, refractive, and diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantations. METHODS: After cataract extractions, in 20 eyes accommodative IOL (group 1), in 30 eyes refractive IOL (group 2), and in 20 eyes diffractive multifocal IOL (group 3) implantations were performed. CS were measured with the stereo optical functional acuity contrast test. Uncorrected distance (UCDVA) and distance corrected near visual acuities (DCNVA) and refractive values were determined. RESULTS: The mean UCDVA (0.99+/-0.03) and DCNVA (0.98+/-0.04) of group 3 were significantly better than the other IOL groups. The mean DCNVA of group 2 (0.71+/-0.14) was significantly better than group 1 (0.5+/-0.08). One month after the operations CS, values of group 2 were significantly lower than the 2 other IOL groups. Photopic CS values of group 1 at 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were significantly higher than group 3. Three months after the operations, CS values of group 1 and 3 were significantly higher than that of group 2 at 3, 6, 12, and 18 cpd and in all spatial frequencies respectively. There was no difference between groups 1 and 3 with respect to photopic CS values. Mesopic CS values of group 3 were significantly higher than that of group 1 at 1.5, 3, and 6 cpd. At the 6th and 12th month, CS values of group 3 were similar or better compared to the values of the 3rd month. CONCLUSIONS: The diffractive multifocal IOL resulted in more favorable visual acuities and higher CS values than accommodative and refractive multifocal IOL.