PURPOSE: To evaluate visual outcomes after implantation of an aspheric multifocal/ intraocular lens (MIOL) or an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: This was a prospective nonrandomized study. During 3-months of post-operative follow-up, the following outcomes for SN6AD1 MIOL (multifocal group) and SN60WF IOL (monofocal group) were compared: uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, uncorrected (UNVA) and distance-corrected (DCNVA) near visual acuity, Chinese character near visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) under high (100% contrast) and low contrast (10% contrast), UIVA for different IOL powers, and a quality-of-life questionnaire. RESULTS: UNVA, DCNVA, and UIVA under high contrast in the multifocal group were significantly better than those in the monofocal group (P<0.05). UDVA, CDVA and UIVA under low contrast did not differ between groups at 63 cm and 100 cm (P>0.05). In most of the cases, Chinese character near visual acuity was significantly better in the multifocal group (P<0.05). UNVA and UIVA at 63cm were improved 3 months post-operatively. Better UIVA was found in emmetropic and mild myopic eyes as compared to hyperopic ones. The patients in the multifocal group had a higher degree of satisfaction and performed better on near and intermediate tasks, although with greater complaints of visual disturbance. CONCLUSION: The SN6AD1 MIOL provides significantly better UNVA, DCNVA and UIVA under high contrast conditions, and better Chinese character near visual acuity. Patients receiving the SN6AD1 MIOL reported a better quality of vision in spite of more serious visual disturbances. Better UIVA was observed in emmetropic and mildly myopic eyes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate visual outcomes after implantation of an aspheric multifocal/ intraocular lens (MIOL) or an aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: This was a prospective nonrandomized study. During 3-months of post-operative follow-up, the following outcomes for SN6AD1 MIOL (multifocal group) and SN60WF IOL (monofocal group) were compared: uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, uncorrected (UNVA) and distance-corrected (DCNVA) near visual acuity, Chinese character near visual acuity, uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) under high (100% contrast) and low contrast (10% contrast), UIVA for different IOL powers, and a quality-of-life questionnaire. RESULTS:UNVA, DCNVA, and UIVA under high contrast in the multifocal group were significantly better than those in the monofocal group (P<0.05). UDVA, CDVA and UIVA under low contrast did not differ between groups at 63 cm and 100 cm (P>0.05). In most of the cases, Chinese character near visual acuity was significantly better in the multifocal group (P<0.05). UNVA and UIVA at 63cm were improved 3 months post-operatively. Better UIVA was found in emmetropic and mild myopic eyes as compared to hyperopic ones. The patients in the multifocal group had a higher degree of satisfaction and performed better on near and intermediate tasks, although with greater complaints of visual disturbance. CONCLUSION: The SN6AD1 MIOL provides significantly better UNVA, DCNVA and UIVA under high contrast conditions, and better Chinese character near visual acuity. Patients receiving the SN6AD1 MIOL reported a better quality of vision in spite of more serious visual disturbances. Better UIVA was observed in emmetropic and mildly myopic eyes.