PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the clinical results of 2 diffractive multifocal small-incision intraocular lenses (IOLs) implanted after biaxial microincision cataract surgery (MICS). SETTING: Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, 2nd Ophthalmology Department, Ankara, Turkey. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: Eyes that had biaxial MICS with implantation of an Acri.Lisa 366D IOL (Group 1) or Acriva Reviol MFM 611 IOL (Group 2) were followed for at least 6 months postoperatively. Uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities; corrected distance visual acuity; distance-corrected intermediate and near visual acuities; and contrast sensitivity measurements with and without glare were determined. Early and late complications and subjective complaints were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: The study enrolled 60 eyes of 32 patients. The preoperative and intraoperative data were comparable in the 2 IOL groups. There were no statistically significant postoperative differences in the mean spherical equivalent (Group 1, -0.30 diopter (D) ± 0.30 [SD]; Group 2, -0.26 ± 0.28 D; P=.584), mean UDVA (0.80 ± 0.14 and 0.86 ± 0.17, respectively; P=.158), and mean Jaeger UNVA (1.46 ± 0.73 and J 1.23 ± 0.50, respectively; P=.155). However, there was a significant difference in mean Jaeger UIVA (3.06 ± 0.90 and 2.23 ± 0.72, respectively; P=.000). Mesopic contrast sensitivity and the incidence of complications and dysphotopsia symptoms were not significantly different between the 2 IOL groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs provided excellent distance and near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. The Group 2 IOL gave better intermediate distance results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the clinical results of 2 diffractive multifocal small-incision intraocular lenses (IOLs) implanted after biaxial microincision cataract surgery (MICS). SETTING: Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, 2nd Ophthalmology Department, Ankara, Turkey. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: Eyes that had biaxial MICS with implantation of an Acri.Lisa 366D IOL (Group 1) or Acriva Reviol MFM 611 IOL (Group 2) were followed for at least 6 months postoperatively. Uncorrected distance (UDVA), intermediate (UIVA), and near (UNVA) visual acuities; corrected distance visual acuity; distance-corrected intermediate and near visual acuities; and contrast sensitivity measurements with and without glare were determined. Early and late complications and subjective complaints were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: The study enrolled 60 eyes of 32 patients. The preoperative and intraoperative data were comparable in the 2 IOL groups. There were no statistically significant postoperative differences in the mean spherical equivalent (Group 1, -0.30 diopter (D) ± 0.30 [SD]; Group 2, -0.26 ± 0.28 D; P=.584), mean UDVA (0.80 ± 0.14 and 0.86 ± 0.17, respectively; P=.158), and mean Jaeger UNVA (1.46 ± 0.73 and J 1.23 ± 0.50, respectively; P=.155). However, there was a significant difference in mean Jaeger UIVA (3.06 ± 0.90 and 2.23 ± 0.72, respectively; P=.000). Mesopic contrast sensitivity and the incidence of complications and dysphotopsia symptoms were not significantly different between the 2 IOL groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs provided excellent distance and near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. The Group 2 IOL gave better intermediate distance results.