PURPOSE: This prospective, randomized, double-masked, clinical trial was designed to evaluate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, subjective quality of vision, and quality of life in 47 patients symmetrically, and randomly, implanted with 4 different IOL designs (SN6AD1, SN60D3, ReZoom NXG1, and Tecnis ZMA00), 3 months after cataract intervention. METHODS:Binocular corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity, binocular distance corrected (BCNVA) and uncorrected (UCNVA) near visual acuity, binocular distance corrected (BCIVA) and uncorrected (UCIVA) intermediate visual acuity, photopic, mesopic, and mesopic with glare contrast sensitivity, quality of vision, and quality of life were evaluated. RESULTS: Statistically and clinically significant differences were found in BCNVA and UCNVA at 33 cm between high and low add power IOLs, while diffractive SN6AD1 lenses achieved better UCNVA at 40 cm than refractive ReZoom IOLs. Asphericity and low add power were found to improve BCIVA. Contrast sensitivity was similarly compromised in all IOL models, although diffractive optics and aspheric profiles performed better in mesopic conditions. All IOL types received similar overall satisfaction and quality of life scores. Whereas ReZoom patients depended on their spectacles for near tasks, intermediate vision was spectacle independent. Photic phenomena were present in all IOLs, albeit more frequent in ReZoom IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: The present results, which reflect IOL characteristics in optics, profile, and add power, may contribute to help surgeons decide on the type of IOL most suitable for each patient, especially those with high visual demands at near and intermediate distances.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This prospective, randomized, double-masked, clinical trial was designed to evaluate visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, subjective quality of vision, and quality of life in 47 patients symmetrically, and randomly, implanted with 4 different IOL designs (SN6AD1, SN60D3, ReZoom NXG1, and Tecnis ZMA00), 3 months after cataract intervention. METHODS: Binocular corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity, binocular distance corrected (BCNVA) and uncorrected (UCNVA) near visual acuity, binocular distance corrected (BCIVA) and uncorrected (UCIVA) intermediate visual acuity, photopic, mesopic, and mesopic with glare contrast sensitivity, quality of vision, and quality of life were evaluated. RESULTS: Statistically and clinically significant differences were found in BCNVA and UCNVA at 33 cm between high and low add power IOLs, while diffractive SN6AD1 lenses achieved better UCNVA at 40 cm than refractive ReZoom IOLs. Asphericity and low add power were found to improve BCIVA. Contrast sensitivity was similarly compromised in all IOL models, although diffractive optics and aspheric profiles performed better in mesopic conditions. All IOL types received similar overall satisfaction and quality of life scores. Whereas ReZoom patients depended on their spectacles for near tasks, intermediate vision was spectacle independent. Photic phenomena were present in all IOLs, albeit more frequent in ReZoom IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: The present results, which reflect IOL characteristics in optics, profile, and add power, may contribute to help surgeons decide on the type of IOL most suitable for each patient, especially those with high visual demands at near and intermediate distances.
Authors: José-María Sánchez-González; María Carmen Sánchez-González; Concepción De-Hita-Cantalejo; Antonio Ballesteros-Sánchez Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.964