PURPOSE: To compare visual function after bilateral implantation of the multifocal Lentis Mplus LS-312 with a nonrotational symmetrical design (copolymer aspheric) or the Acrysof Restor SN6AD1 +3.0 D (hybrid aspheric) intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Fernández-Vega Ophthalmological Institute, Oviedo, Spain. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: Six months postoperatively, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), the defocus curve, and photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare were measured. RESULTS: The mean CDVA was 0.02 ± 0.06 (SD) with the copolymer aspheric IOL and -0.06 ± 0.05 logMAR with the hybrid aspheric IOL (P=.07) and the mean DCNVA, 0.10 ± 0.06 and -0.09 ± 0.06 logMAR, respectively. The DCNVA was better with the hybrid aspheric IOL (P<.05). The defocus curve showed that the hybrid aspheric IOL provided better visual acuity from 0.00 to -5.00 diopter (D) vergences (P<.05) except for -1.00 and -1.50 D, where the IOLs were comparable. Contrast sensitivity was better with the hybrid aspheric IOL at 12 cycles per degree (cpd) and 18 cpd under photopic conditions (P<.05). No significant differences were found under mesopic conditions (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOL models gave good and comparable visual acuity at distance. However, the hybrid aspheric IOL provided better DCNVA than the copolymer aspheric IOL. Intermediate vision was not as good as distance and near and was similar between the 2 IOLs. Photopic contrast sensitivity was better with the hybrid aspheric IOL at high spatial frequencies and comparable between IOLs at low frequencies and under mesopic conditions.
PURPOSE: To compare visual function after bilateral implantation of the multifocal Lentis Mplus LS-312 with a nonrotational symmetrical design (copolymer aspheric) or the Acrysof Restor SN6AD1 +3.0 D (hybrid aspheric) intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Fernández-Vega Ophthalmological Institute, Oviedo, Spain. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: Six months postoperatively, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), the defocus curve, and photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without glare were measured. RESULTS: The mean CDVA was 0.02 ± 0.06 (SD) with the copolymer aspheric IOL and -0.06 ± 0.05 logMAR with the hybrid aspheric IOL (P=.07) and the mean DCNVA, 0.10 ± 0.06 and -0.09 ± 0.06 logMAR, respectively. The DCNVA was better with the hybrid aspheric IOL (P<.05). The defocus curve showed that the hybrid aspheric IOL provided better visual acuity from 0.00 to -5.00 diopter (D) vergences (P<.05) except for -1.00 and -1.50 D, where the IOLs were comparable. Contrast sensitivity was better with the hybrid aspheric IOL at 12 cycles per degree (cpd) and 18 cpd under photopic conditions (P<.05). No significant differences were found under mesopic conditions (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOL models gave good and comparable visual acuity at distance. However, the hybrid aspheric IOL provided better DCNVA than the copolymer aspheric IOL. Intermediate vision was not as good as distance and near and was similar between the 2 IOLs. Photopic contrast sensitivity was better with the hybrid aspheric IOL at high spatial frequencies and comparable between IOLs at low frequencies and under mesopic conditions.
Authors: David P Piñero; Vicente J Camps; María L Ramón; Verónica Mateo; Rafael J Pérez-Cambrodí Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Jesús Carballo-Alvarez; Jose M Vazquez-Molini; Juan C Sanz-Fernandez; Javier Garcia-Bella; Vicente Polo; Julián García-Feijoo; Jose M Martinez-de-la-Casa Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 2.209